Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bristol Corporation Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

SHANGHAI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the diplomatic body in Pekin have given their consent to the appointment of three Chinese representatives on the Shanghai Municipal Council?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): The Corps Diplomatique have agreed in principle to Chinese participation in the municipal administration, and have notified the Chinese Government accordingly. So I have no reason to suppose that any objection will be raised to this specific proposal. Their consent, however, has not yet been asked, since this matter is one of those the settlement of which is now being negotiated between the Consular body at Shanghai and the local Chinese authorities.

Mr. PALING: Are these the only Chinese representatives on the Municipal Council, or are there others elected previously?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. BARKER: How are these appointments made? Are the members co-opted, or what?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I should like notice of that question, too.

ANTI-BRITISH BOYCOTT.

Mr. BARKER: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Canton Government has notified the Hong Kong Government of its readiness to negotiate regarding the settlement of the Canton-Hong Kong strike and anti-British boycott; and whether he has any information regarding the present position of the negotiations?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes Sir; it is hoped that negotiations for the settlement of the anti-British boycott will be begun at Canton on the 15th July.

SALT RESERVE.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the amounts, with the names, of the loans that have been issued on the security of the salt gabelle?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The following loans have been issued on the security of the salt gabelle:

(1) Anglo-French Loan of 1908 for £5,000,000 secured on salt taxes in certain provinces, estimated to yield Taels 2,350,000 per annum.
(2) The Hukuang Railways Loan of 1911 for £6,000,000 secured on salt taxes in certain provinces, estimated to yield Tads 950,000 per annum.
(3) Chinese 5 per cent. Gold Loan of 1912 (Crisp Loan) for £5,000,000.
(4) The Re-organisation Loan of 1913 for £25,000,000. This loan is paid in the first instance out of the salt gabelle, but the amounts so paid are refunded to the salt gabelle in monthly instalments from the Maritime Customs Revenues.

Sir F. WISE: Who looks after the administration of these funds at the present time?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put his question on the Paper, and make it a little more precise as to what he means by administration?

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the security is still sound?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have answered a question on that point.

BRITISH RESIDENTS.

Mr. BARKER: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of British subjects who are resident in China; the number residing in the treaty ports; and the number residing outside the treaty ports?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The latest available statistics show that in 1924 the total number of British subjects in China was 14,701. No exact figures are available showing the proportion resident within the treaty ports, but it is estimated that this comprises more than one-half of the total.

PASSPORTS.

Colonel DAY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what Regulations exist as to the issue of passports to persons about to be married who wish to spend their honeymoon abroad; and whether he can make any statement for the guidance of persons so concerned?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: In the case of persons about to be married and wishing to leave this country immediately after the ceremony it is the practice to issue post-dated passports in the married names, and to hand them to the officiating minister or registrar for delivery as soon as the wedding has taken place. Information to this effect is furnished to all inquirers.

RUSSIA (COMPENSATION CLAIM, MR. MARTIN).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what were the circumstances under which Mr. J. Martin lost his eyesight in Russia; whether he was charged with any offence by the Soviet Government and, if so, with what offence; whether any application for compensation has been made on his behalf to the Soviet Government by His Majesty's Government; and whether he has received any compensation or help from His Majesty's Government?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Martin stated in 1923 that he had become practically blind as a result of an attack of spotted typhus fever contracted during his imprisonment in Moscow in 1919–1920. So far as I am aware, Mr. Martin was not charged with any offence at the time of his arrest or during the term of his imprisonment. In reply to the representations made by His Majesty's Government on Mr. Martin's behalf in 1923 the Soviet Government stated that he had been arrested as a suspicious foreigner at a time when intervention in the internal affairs of Soviet Russia was still being carried on by a number of States. In answer to the third point, I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. B. Peto) on the 30th June. Mr. Martin has not received any compensation or financial assistance from His Majesty's Government.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the Government have been unable to get compensation for this very sad case, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider the case one in which the Government should give Mr. Martin something to go on with in the way of financial assistance?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There is a great number of cases outstanding for which we should like compensation from the Soviet Government, when the time comes that we may profitably resume negotiations.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this is an exception? The man has lost his sight and cannot earn a livelihood?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I really cannot make exceptions in favour of particular subjects.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that the reason for the blindness was fever, due almost entirely to our stopping preventives and medicines going into Russia at the time of the blockade?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I think there is no foundation for that statement.

Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not true that this man was tied to his bed and flung among dead bodies in prison, and that is the sole reason why he lost his sight?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of that question. I cannot carry the details in my head.

Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that the blockade was in operation at the time that this man was arrested?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for an hon. and gallant Gentleman to make a statement such as we have just heard without definite proof being submitted?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid many statements of the kind are made by hon. Members.

TANGIER (INTERNATIONAL POLICE).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who is the officer in charge of the mixed police in the international zone of Tangier and what is his nationality; what control is exercised over the police by the Tangier administration; who are the British members of the Tangier administration; and whether they have been instructed to exercise proper control over the police with a view to preventing abuses?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what the nationality is of the international police officers in Tangier against whom certain charges have recently been made; and to what extent is His Majesty's Government responsible for these appointments?

Mr. RAMSDEN: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that serious complaints have been made with regard to the international police force in Tangier; and whether he will press for an immediate inquiry into its methods?

Viscount SANDON: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the investigation into the police scandals in the international zone at Tangier involves any British subjects?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If I may, I will answer these questions together. The civil police of Tangier are under the control of the Administrator, who is in
turn responsible to the Tangier Legislative Assembly. The Commissioner at the head of the force is of French nationality and the force is composed of police officers of different nationalities, including two Spanish Assistant Commissioners. The Commissioner and one of the Assistant Commissioners have been suspended. His Majesty's Government are in no way responsible for any appointment in the Tangier police. The principal British members of the Tangier Administration are the three British representatives in the Assembly, the Director of Finance and His Majesty's Consul-General at Tangier. Neither the British representatives in the Assembly nor the Director of Finance are under the control of His Majesty's Government. So far as I am aware, no British subjects are involved in the abuses which are alleged to have taken place. As the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) was informed on the 5th instant, His Majesty's Consul-General at Tangier is pressing for a full inquiry, but I am unable to state whether any British subject will take part in any investigation which may be made.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that it would be well to use his influence to secure that, at least, one British officer should be appointed to this mixed police force?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Where there is a competent authority, I am loth to interfere with their discretion so long as I have no reason to believe that they are failing in the execution of their duty.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the scandal that has occurred, would it not be possible for His Majesty's Consul-General at Tangier to press that one of the Assistant Commissioners should in future be an Englishman; in default of that, would it not be possible for the administration at Tangier, where so many affairs of this sort have occurred, to be taken over by the League of Nations?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Many things are possible, but not always expedient.

Colonel DAY: What are the abuses complained of?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

PRIVATE MANUFACTURE OF ARMS.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a draft Convention dealing with the international aspect of the private manufacture of arms will be drawn up before the Seventh Assembly of the League of Nations meets?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: A committee of inquiry appointed by the Council of the League has already drawn up a preliminary draft Convention. The committee is considering the preliminary draft in the light of the replies which have been received from the members of the League to a questionnaire issued by the Council of the League. It is hoped that this work will be completed and an amended draft drawn up before the next Assembly of the League.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Great Britain has ratified the Convention for the Supervision of the International Trade in Arms and Ammunition and the Implements of War drawn up by the League Conference of June, 1925; and how many other countries have ratified, and which?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Great Britain has not ratified the Convention. No official notification has been received of its ratification by any other Power.

MANDATES.

Major DAVIES (for Viscount SANDON): 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with what authority the granting and withdrawing of mandates is, under the Treaty of Versailles, vested and by whom mandates were allotted before the League of Nations was constituted?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Treaty of Versailles contains no provisions vesting the granting or withdrawing of mandates with any authority. Under Article 119 the sovereignty over the ex-German colonies was transferred to the principal Allied and Associated Powers, who allocated the mandates for those colonies before the signature of the Treaty.

NATIVE LABOUR (ASIA AND AFRICA).

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
what inquiries into native labour in Asia and Africa have been undertaken by the League of Nations secretariat, or the International Labour Office, or by committees of these bodies; and whether any further inquiries have been proposed or are projected?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have been asked to reply. In accordance with a recent decision of the Governing Body the International Labour Office has undertaken an inquiry into native labour questions with special reference to forced labour and indentured labour, and a small advisory committee of experts is being appointed to assist the Office in its task. I understand that no inquiry of this kind by the League of Nations secretariat has been undertaken or is in contemplation.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

PEMBROKE AND ROSYTE DOCKYARDS (WORKMEN'S HOUSES).

Colonel DAY: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he is aware that employés recently transferred from Pembroke and Rosyth Dockyards have been compelled to sell their houses at great financial loss owing to the depreciation in value following the closing of these yards; that they are unable to obtain accommodation at Portsmouth and Chatham; and will he consider the appeal of the men concerned that the Government should bear some of the financial losses which their policy has inflicted upon these transferred men?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): I have no information as to losses actually sustained by Admiralty employés through the sale of their houses at Pembroke Dock and Rosyth. The possibility of such losses in regard to Pembroke Dock has, however, been represented to the Admiralty, and the matter is at present under consideration. As regards the additional expenditure incurred by the employés who are unable to obtain unfurnished accommodation, provision has already been made for the payment of lodging allowance. Particulars as to these allowances were given in the reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on 21st April last [OFFICIAL REPORT, column 1195–6]. I
should add that, although that reply was in respect of Devonport, the same rules apply to the other dockyard towns.

Colonel DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that just lately one of these men had to sell a six-room house for £10, and that another one with a 10-room house cannot let it for 5s. a week?

DOCK ACCOMMODATION, SYDNEY.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is considering the question of enlarging the docking accommodation at Sydney, in consultation with the Government of the Commonwealth, so as to enable it to take the largest units of His Majesty's Navy; what would be the, approximate cost; and whether the Commonwealth Government is prepared to bear part of the cost of such enlargement?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the last part does not, therefore, arise. Without full investigation of all the conditions, no approximate estimate of the cost could be given.

WARRANT OFFICERS (RETIREMENT).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that under Article 1915 of King's Regulations warrant officers were pensioned on retirement at the age of 55, but that since July, 1922, they are compulsorily retired at the age of 50, it is proposed to grant compensation to those who were promoted before July, 1922, when the terms of service were altered to their disadvantage, and who, as a consequence, have the prospect of losing five years' service with attendant emoluments and rights?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I understand that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to officers promoted to warrant rank before the special retirement scheme of 1922 came into force, who have not since received promotion to the rank or relative rank of lieutenant. The compulsory age of retirement of warrant officers was reduced from 55 to 50 years in conjunction with the retirement scheme of 1922, when drastic measures had to be taken to effect the readjustments rendered necessary by the changed conditions after the War. These measures involved almost all
classes and grades of officers in some sacrifice. Warrant officers promoted before the introduction of the scheme, who now have to retire at an earlier age than was originally laid down, suffer no greater hardship than the officers of all classes who were compulsorily retired in 1922, in many cases a considerable number of years before the ordinary retirement age, and I regret that no special compensation can be granted to them.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was specifically stated in the Regulations when they were appointed that these men would have the right to serve until the age of 55, and in these circumstances cannot the Admiralty see their way to fulfil the contracts, as non-observance presses so hardly upon these people?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I am afraid that the same consideration must apply.

CIVILIAN STAFFS ABROAD (REORGANISED ALLOWANCES).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to Admiralty Telegram No. 608, of 6th March, 1926, authorising reorganised allowances for Admiralty civilian staffs serving at Trincomali and Rangoon, whether, in view of the fact that the cost of living is equally as high at Bombay as at these places, he will consider assessing the allowances of the foreman of the laboratory and two storehousemen employed at the naval armament supply depot, Bombay, at an annual rate on similar lines to Trincomali and Rangoon?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The allowances for Admiralty civilian staffs appointed from home for service abroad are assessed with regard to the circumstances at each place. There is no evidence that the allowances paid at Bombay are inadequate.

LIEUTENANTS (PROMOTIONS),

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the 8 per cent. of promotions to lieutenant authorised by Appendix X, Part XIA, of the King's Regulations, Admiralty Instructions, are intended for each branch of warrant officer; and whether all executive
warrant officers, namely, gunners, gunners T, boatswains, signal boatswains, warrant telegraphists, etc., are considered as one branch for the purpose of promotion to lieutenant in the same manner as warrant engineers and warrant mechanicians?

Mr. DAVIDSON: Generally speaking, the 8 per cent. of promotions to lieutenant is intended for each branch of warrant officers. The various classes of executive warrant officers are considered separately, except that gunners and gunners T, in accordance with longstanding practice, are, for the purpose, considered as one branch.

ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICER APPRENTICES.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many engine-room artificer apprentices from His Majesty's Ship "Fisgard" are going to Chatham to complete their training; whether, as in this training it has been the practice to utilise as instructors in practical engineering chief and engine-room artificers, and as now orders have been issued that instructions have to be given by dockyard employés, he will say what is the reason for this change; and is it likely to decrease expenditure in the cost of training?

Mr. DAVIDSON: About 120 artificer apprentices will be transferred to Chatham in the first instance. As the workshops of the Mechanical Training Establishment at Chatham are in the dockyard, and the apprentices will do much of their work in the dockyard shops, it will be more convenient that the practical instruction should be provided from the dockyard. It is anticipated that the change will ultimately result in a small saving, but efficiency and convenience, and not economy, were the primary reasons for it.

UNEMPLOYMENT (BENEFIT DISALLOWED).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour why J. M. Bell, pick sharpener, Rassington Main Colliery, near Doncaster, has been refused unemployment pay, seeing that he is normally employed by the check-weigh committee, with whom he has no dispute,
and is now out of work through no fault of his own?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I am having inquiries made, and will let the hon. Member know the result.

CIERVA AUTO-GYRO.

Colonel DAY: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the result of the tests of the windmill aeroplane, Cierva Giro?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): By arrangement with Senor de la Cierva, a demonstration of the auto-gyro was given at Farnborough in October last. The Air Ministry subsequently ordered a number of these aircraft from British firms, and one flew for the first time on 19th June. It is proposed to carry out an extended series of trials during the present summer in order to enable the Air Ministry to decide as to the probable utility of this type of aircraft for Service and civil flying.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these aeroplanes have been ordered?

Sir S. HOARE: Four have been ordered.

LIGHT AEROPLANE CLUBS (GRANTS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Air what financial or other assistance is afforded by his Department to private flying clubs where new pilots are being trained; and what inducements are held out to young pilots when they receive a certificate of proficiency?

Sir S. HOARE: Agreements for a term of two years have been made with six light aeroplane clubs, whose constitution has been approved by the Air Ministry, providing for the grant to each of a sum not exceeding £2,000 for the purchase of initial equipment, a grant not exceeding £1,000 for each year of the agreement towards maintenance of the equipment, and a replacement grant, if required, during the first year of half the cost of replacement within a maximum of £1,000. As regards the second part of
the question, a grant of £10, of which half may be given to the club member, is made to the club for each member who, having been trained on club aircraft, obtains a pilot's certificate.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that prospective pilots have to pay high charges for the tuition they receive, and could he not do something to provide opportunities for those who are less capable of paying for tuition?

Sir S. HOARE: I do not think there is any general dissatisfaction with the conditions, which are in the nature of an experiment. I will watch the point raised by the hon. Member.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these pilots have certificates?

Sir S. HOARE: I could not say without notice.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER MEMORIALS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, seeing that many eminent men of the past associated with the growth of Parliament are represented on canvas or in stone throughout the Palace of Westminster, he will take into consideration some form of memorial to Simon de Montfort?

Captain HACKING (for the first Commissioner of Works): As my hon. and gallant Friend omitted to draw the attention of the Office of Works to the omission from the Estimates of the necessary financial item for the erection of such a memorial, previous to the Estimates receiving the approval of this House, the First Commissioner regrets that no funds are new available for the purpose desired. I may perhaps add that if anyone is prepared to offer such a memorial, the First Commissioner would be prepared to consider its acceptance.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is not this great statesman the real father of the Mother of Parliaments, and should not some effort be made to put up a memorial worthy of him?

Captain HACKING: It is a question of finance, and no provision has been made in the Estimates.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that even the Office of Works are not quite sure whether there is a memorial to him or not, and that one of their most intelligent men spent the whole day in running round to see if he could find one?

Captain HACKING: I do not accept the suggestion that one of the most intelligent men was sent round.

Captain BENN: Is the Home Secretary not aware that Simon de Montfort was guilty of sedition?

Captain HACKING: I understand that he improved his ways later in life.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: In considering the question of these memorials, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there was a certain Guy Fawkes who took a much more reasonable view of this place, and is much more popular with the public outside?

Captain HACKING: If the hon. Member wishes me to go into great detail, I ought to have notice of that question.

IMPORTATION OF CARCASES (PROHIBITION).

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that, as a result of the embargo placed upon the importation of pig meat from the Continent, the price of stores, in preparation for the Christmas trade in this country, has risen considerably; and, if so, will he state what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. The increase in the price of store pigs since the issue of the Order prohibiting the importation of car cases from the Continent has been inconsiderable. No action in the matter on my right hon. Friend's part is either necessary or desirable.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is that answer based upon the average price of store pigs?

Sir H. BARNSTON: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

ARMS AND AMMUNITION (EXPORTS).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the total export of British arms and ammunition year by year since 1920, the country of destination, and the amount per year in each case; whether the arms and ammunition come from private British firms or Government-controlled firms; and, if from both, the amounts in each case?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I would refer the hon. Member to Volume III of the "Annual Statement of Trade of the United Kingdom," for the year 1924, pages 502-519, in which full particulars are given of the exports of arms and ammunition of United Kingdom manufacture in each of the years 1920 to 1924. Corresponding details for 1925 are not yet available, but the total exports of arms, ammunition, etc. in that year are shown in the monthly "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom" for December, page 177. As to the second and third parts of the question, I regret that it is not possible to supply the information desired by the hon. Gentleman.

COMPANY RETURNS (HOSKINS AND SONS,BIRMINGHAM).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the return of Messrs. Hoskins and Son, Limited, of Trinity Street, Birmingham, to Somerset House for the year 1926 is overdue; whether he is aware that no return was filed at Somerset House during the year 1924; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): The annual return of a company is by Section 26 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, required to be filed within 21 days after the first or only ordinary general meeting held in the year. It was not considered necessary to require the filing of a return for the year 1924 having regard to the fact that the particulars given in the 1923 and 1925 returns respectively are identical. The registrar has no evidence that the filing of the 1926 return is overdue.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the last return filed by this company was on 23rd March, 1925? Is not that more than a year ago and is not a return overdue?

Sir B. CHADWICK: The time between the last meeting and the date on which it is necessary to make a return under the Act is 15 months. There may have been a second meeting in 1925, so the Board has no evidence that the law has not been complied with.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Are we to understand that any company has the option not to file a return for any particular year it chooses if it holds that the same particulars appear on another return?

Sir B. CHADWICK: No, Sir. If by the end of any particular year, 1926 for instance, this company had not filed its return, it could be compelled to file it by December, 1926.

Mr. JOHNSTON: But does not that last answer contradict what the hon. Gentleman said previously? Is it not the case that no return has yet been filed for the period from October 1922, to October 1923?

Sir B. CHADWICK: Yes, that is true, but it was not considered necessary to enforce the filing, because by the time the Board of Trade were aware that the company had not filed in the year 1924 the 1925 returns were available, and as they were actually the same as 1923 it was felt that it was not necessary to take proceedings.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Has there not been a breach of the law?

Mr. JOHNSTON: As this company has not complied with the law for the period stated, is the Board of Trade not prepared to take action against it for failing to obey the law?

Sir B. CHADWICK: They would do if they considered that action were necessary, but here is a company which makes a return for 1925 identical with that for 1923, and if the Board were to take proceedings in every case on the grounds on which it is suggested they should do so by the hon. Member and where it is considered that no useful purpose would be served they would merely be acting in an oppressive manner.

Captain CROOKSHANK: What is the point about this company? Is it of public interest?

Mr. JOHNSTON: You will see later.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

FOREIGN COAL IMPORTS.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 33.
asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of coal imported into Great Britain since 1st May; the countries from which such coal has been imported; the amount; and the cost in each case?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): The amount of coal imported between 1st May and 3rd July was 1,102,789 tons. It came from the Continent and the United States. I regret that I am not in a position to give the further details asked for, except in so far as they were given on 28th June, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Doncaster.

Mr. BATEY: Was all this coal imported by private companies, or has the Government imported any of it?

Colonel LANE FOX: No, I think this is all privately imported.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman's Department keep figures in order to safeguard any profiteering by coal merchants in the case of domestic coal?

Colonel LANE FOX: I am not doing anything to interfere with the interests of foreign trade, because it is not necessary.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman take the view that foreign coal must come in at whatever price is going to be charged to the domestic consumer?

GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 41.
asked the Prime Minister if he will now state clearly and in detail the exact proposals of the Government for implementing the Coal Commission's recommendation; the date when these proposals were submitted to the Coal Owners' Association and the Miners' Federation; which of the proposals were accepted or rejected by both
parties; and, further, will he give the date when he last invited the owners and workers' representatives to meet in joint conference to discuss these or other proposals for a settlement of the mining disputes?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I have been asked to reply. To recapitulate all the information asked for by the hon. Member would take me far outside the bounds of an answer to a Parliamentary question. Most of the points raised by the hon. Member have already been the subject of Debate in the House on more than one occasion.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the coalowners rejected the Prime Minister's proposals on the 21st May, and that the Miners' Federation of Great Britain also rejected those terms because of the implied immediate reduction in wages and lack of essential details; and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, after six weeks have elapsed, it is the duty of the Government to convene a further meeting of the two parties at which the present detailed proposals can be laid before them and discussed?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If I may say so, the argumentative form of the hon. Member's supplementary question really shows that this is a matter which cannot be dealt with in detail by question and answer.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the last part of the question, namely, when last did the Prime Minister invite the two parties to meet together to discuss the reorganisation proposals of the Government?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Not for some considerable time, and the reason is that it is no good asking the two parties to meet together to discuss reorganisation or any other proposals until it is propitious and some good can be obtained by the joint meeting of the two parties.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the last date on which the Government met the owners with regard to the wage claims that had to be set down and in response to which they were going to get the eight hours;
and will he state whether the Miners' Federation were given an invitation to discuss the same question?

Mr. SPENCER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Londonderry in another place last night stated with emphasis that the owners had accepted the Report, and can he say whether there is any truth in that as far as the Government are concerned?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot continue to answer these questions without notice as regards statements made in another place which I have not seen and which really do not arise from the question on the Paper.

Mr. PALING: Are not these matters, on which information is being asked, matters with which the Government have already dealt, and are not we on this side entitled to answers to the questions we are asking?

Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the tremendous national importance of the statements that have been made with regard to reorganisation acceptance or rejection, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House, and the country through the House, definitely whether the coalowners have really accepted the reorganisation proposals of the Government or not?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer of the owners was quite definitely given at an early stage of the proceedings, as the hon. Member knows as well as I do, and that is exactly why I referred to the fact that the information which is at the disposal of the Government has also been at the disposal of the hon. Member himself. Nothing further with regard to that particular point has transpired that I am aware of, speaking on the spur of the moment in reply to a supplementary question.

Mr. SPENCER: May I ask whether the owners accepted categorically the recommendations of the Commissioners? Did they or did they not?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: All I can answer to the hon. Member is that the exact degree of acceptance of the private owners, whether he would describe it as categorical or not, of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, was pub-
lished in the "Times" two months ago at least, and it is as open to the hon. Member as it is to anyone else to place his exact interpretation upon that. I have no other information as to the degree of acceptance which I can give.

Mr. SPENCER: I am asking simply what the Government's interpretation was. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that in five respects they have said they agreed, and the others were modifications. Do I understand that the Government believe that they did accept under conditions of that character?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how the Minister can answer that question. It involves other parties.

Mr. WILLIAMS: With great respect, may I ask if the Minister will be good enough to state whether the coalowners have expressed their willingness to accept the reorganisation proposals with which the Government are now dealing?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that that question should be put down.

INDIA (IMPRISONMENT, CAWNPORE).

Miss WILKINSON: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that two Indians, Usmani and Dange, sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment at Cawnpore in 1924, are suffering gravely in health as a result of the conditions to which they have been subjected; and whether the Government of India propose to take any steps to improve these conditions?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I have no knowledge that the health of these prisoners is affected; but I will see that the inquiry reaches the Government of India.

Miss WILKINSON: May I ask whether the result of that inquiry will be sent to me, or whether I shall have to put down another question?

Earl WINTERTON: That rests with the hon. Lady. Perhaps she will put down another question.

BIRD SANCTUARIES, SCOTLAND.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 35.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether any, and, if so, what, efforts are being made in Scotland for the encouragement of bird sanctuaries; and whether the proposals by the city of Glasgow to convert a portion of the Ardgoil estate into a wild life reserve is to be devoted solely to birds?

Major ELLIOTT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): A Committee has been set up under the auspices of His Majesty's Office of Works to consider the question of the establishment of bird sanctuaries in the Royal Parks in Scotland, and a bird sanctuary has been created by that Department on the borders of Duddingston Loch in the Royal Park of Holyrood. Bird sanctuaries have also been created by the corporation of Glasgow in the public parks of that City As regards the second part of the question, I am informed that the corporation have decided that the proposal to convert a portion of the Ardgoil estate into a wild life reserve is not practicable, and that there is no prospect of any part of the estate being devoted solely to birds.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that many interesting forms of wild life are to be found on the banks of the Clyde, and where could they better be preserved than in a sanctuary, and will he ask the authorities to reconsider their decision?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman assure the House that none of these forms of wild life referred to by my hon. Friend are put in sculpture so as to frighten the birds away?

Mr. COUPER: Is it not a fact that a great deal of ignorance is being displayed by hon. Gentlemen who ask such questions?

Mr. MACLEAN: Does this indicate another split in the Tory party?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Not yet, but it will not be long.

ALIENS (NATURALISATION).

Mr. SCURR: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how
many aliens with over 15 years' residence in this country, and against whose character there is no charge, have applied for naturalisation and been refused since 1st January, 1925?

Captain HACKING: As my right hon. Friend stated on 23rd June, in answer to the hon. Member for Central Southwark, the total number of applications which were refused between 1st January, 1925, and 31st May last, was 339. I cannot undertake to give any information as to the applicants' length of residence or their character.

NORTHERN IRELAND (RESIDENCY).

Sir F. WISE: 37.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost of the residency for the Governor of Northern Ireland?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The cost of the residency for the Governor of Northern Ireland, including adaptations and furniture, is approximately £58,000.

Sir F. WISE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is paid for by Northern Ireland or by the taxpayers of Great Britain?

Mr. McNEILL: There is an arrangement by which the cost of upkeep is borne by the Government of Northern Ireland.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the cost borne by Northern Ireland?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say without notice.

Miss WILKINSON: Does the reply given to the hon. Member for Ilford mean that the whole of the £58,000 for furniture and alterations is, in fact, borne by the British taxpayer?

Mr. McNEILL: The taxpayers of Northern Ireland are British taxpayers.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

DEPARTMENTAL MARKINGS.

Mr. BRIANT: 38.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he has been requested by the Joint Committee on Departmental Markings to receive a deputation on the question of the recent
Southborough examination in order to lay before him the anomalies arising out of the methods adopted in awarding Departmental marks; and, if so, in view of the hardships inflicted on many ex-service men, if he will agree to the request?

Mr. McNEILL: Yes, Sir; I have received such a request. I have informed the Joint Committee that I am unable to regard the associations constituting it as representative of candidates at the Southborough examination, and in the circumstances I am not prepared to receive a deputation from them on the subject. In any case, however, I should not feel justified in interfering with the awards made by the Civil Service Commissioners.

Mr. BRIANT: Has the right hon. Gentleman inquired personally into the nature of the grievances of these men?

Mr. McNEILL: I have already said that I cannot interfere with the discretion of the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the Departmental markings are not the work of the Civil Service Commissioners, but the work of the Department?

Mr. McNEILL: No; it is the work of both. The Departmental markings are forwarded to the Commissioners, and they are responsible for the ultimate award.

Mr. HAYES: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to inquire into the method of marking?

Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir; I do not consider that is any part of my duty.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Since when have the Civil Service Commissioners been granted autonomy and freedom from Government control?

Mr. McNEILL: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to inquire into the history of this question, he must give me notice.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is it a fact that the Civil Service Commissioners are subservient, or are they not?

Mr. McNEILL: They are charged with certain duties—

Sir HENRY CRAIK: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not necessary in the interests of purity of administration that the Civil Service Commissioners should be independent?

Mr. SKELTON: Is there no way of silence being maintained while an hon. Member is asking a question?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When the Minister is giving a reply, are there no means of letting him make his reply without interruption?

Captain GARRO-JONES: May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot deal with two questions at the same time. There seem to be so many of these questions that I think it would be better if they were submitted in the ordinary way. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will now complete his interrupted answer.

Mr. McNEILL: It is so long since I made my answer that I should be very glad to reply to any question put to me if I can hear it, but I cannot hear half-a-dozen questions at the same time. If the hon. and gallant Member will repeat his question, I will try to answer it.

Captain GARRO-JONES: The question I desire to ask is, whether it is or is not a fact that the Civil Service Commissioners are under the jurisdiction of the Government?

Sir H. CRAIK: No.

Captain GARRO - JONES: Let the Financial Secretary answer the question.

Mr. McNEILL: Certainly, they are not under the jurisdiction of the Government in the sense that the Government have a right to control them.

Sir H. CRAIK: Although they are financially under the control of the Government, is it not essential in appointing Civil Service Commissioners that they should be absolutely independent of the Government of the day?

Mr. McNEILL: Certainly, that is so.

STATIONERY OFFICE.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour for what reason the adver-
tisement of the quantities of the goods indented for by His Majesty's Stationery Office have been omitted from the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" since March last; and whether, in view of the public interest of the subject, he will arrange for the old system to be renewed?

Mr. BETTERTON: The specification of quantities, to which my hon. Friend refers, was confined to a few items out of the long list of Government contracts published monthly in the "Gazette," and was discontinued in order to save space, on which there are always great demands. It would be quite impracticable to give quantities generally, and I am afraid I do not see any sufficient reason, in view of the pressure on space, for making an exception in the case of the items referred to.

Mr. CAMPBELL: Has the action been taken as the result of the inquisitiveness of other Members and myself, who are very anxious to find out these particular details?

Mr. BETTERTON: No, that is not the reason. The correct reason is the one I have just given, that there is no sufficient reason for differentiation between these and other contracts.

Colonel APPLIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Members of the House use these figures constantly in questions in the House?

Sir F. WISE: Has the hon. Gentleman referred to the "Labour Gazette" previous to March last?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, I have. Apparently these figures were given in relation to a limited number of contracts appertaining to printing contracts, and there has been no reason why this trade should be picked out, and the number given in it when they were not given in any other.

Mr. BOWERMAN: 39.
(for Mr. NAYLOR) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Treasury to terminate the existence of the Stationery Office Joint Industrial Council?

Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir.

IRAQ (FINANCIAL AGREEMENT).

Sir F. WISE: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if Great Britain has received any substantial railway concessions in Iraq owing to the waiving of the claim of about 94 lakhs of rupees against the Iraq Government?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): The answer is in the negative. As I have already stated, the claim on account of transferred assets was waived in accordanct with the recommendation of the Financial Mission. The ownership of the railways in Iraq still vests in His Majesty's Government, and the question of their future is under consideration.

Sir F. WISE: Can my right hon. Friend state the actual amount that is waived? I understand that 94 lakhs is not the right amount.

Mr. AMERY: I think the amount waived is, roughly speaking, about £570,000 nominally.

Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House under what statutory or other authority the amount has been waived?

Mr. AMERY: If statutory authority is required, it will, no doubt, be secured. The Iraq Government have been informed that we are not going to press this claim further, in accordance with the Report of the Financial Mission.

Captain BENN: I am asking if the right hon. Gentleman can tell the House under what authority the Government have acted in waiving this claim?

Mr. AMERY: I understand that the Government are entitled to waive a claim if it is not considered that the further pressing of that claim is necessary. If statutory authority should be required, no doubt it will be secured.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that we shall have some opportunity of discussing this gift of public money to the Iraq Government before it actually takes place?

Mr. AMERY: It is not a question of a gift taking place. These are certain claims for work done during the War,
which we have pressed in the past, always subject to an undertaking on our part to consider the matter further. The Financial Mission advised the Government not to press this claim. When the Colonial Office Estimates come before the House, that question can be discussed.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Is it not the fact that the sum in question is an agreed debt to the Crown, and can an agreed debt to the Crown be waived without the consent of this House?

Mr. AMERY: As I have repeated more than once, we regard this as a claim which has never been a finally agreed sum.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Was it not agreed in the Financial Agreement as a debt due to the Crown?

Mr. AMERY: The Financial Agreement was accompanied by a Note from the British Government saying that they were prepared to give further consideration as to the amount of that sum, and in the last Treaty an undertaking still further seriously to consider that question was again given by the British Government.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when the Government propose to terminate this lavish remission of debts of foreign countries?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be addressed to another Minister.

HOURS OF LABOUR (INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE).

21. Mr. R. YOUNG: asked the Minister of Labour whether any steps are being taken to arrange a conference between India, China and Japan, similar to the conference recently held in London between European Powers, to consider the question of hours of labour?

Earl WINTERTON: I have been asked to reply. No steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government or the Government of India.

Mr. YOUNG: Does not the Noble Lord realise that it is important that a conference of this kind should be undertaken for the purpose of securing protection for British labour?

Earl WINTERTON: I really do not know what the hon. Member has in mind about this conference. I have made careful inquiries and cannot find that any sort of proposal has been made to the Government of India to hold such a conference.

Mr. PALING: Does not the Noble Lord think it would be wise to call a conference in view of the Eight Hours Bill?

Earl WINTERTON: That is a very wide question which it is almost impossible to discuss by way of question and answer. In any case I can take no responsibility for the action of Japan or China.

Mr. YOUNG: Does not the Noble Lord realise the necessity of getting the decision of the International Labour Office in relation to the eight hours ratification considered in India?

Earl WINTERTON: That is an entirely different question. The hon. Member asked me whether the Government of India intend to take part in a conference between India, China and Japan. The question of the eight hours ratification is an entirely different matter. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour indicated in an answer just given that the International Labour Office has been dealing with this question for a long time past.

MERCHANDISE MARKS (IMPORTED GOODS) BILL.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: (for Mr. BARNES) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his Department have received, either directly or through the Foreign Office, any communications from other countries raising questions as to the probable effects of the Merchandise Marks (Imported Goods) Bill upon their trade with this country?

Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: May I ask what business it is proposed to take on Friday, and whether it is proposed to take other business to-night than the supplementary Votes?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Mansell): If I may answer the second question first, we are entirely in the hands of the House. We have not suspended the Eleven O'clock Rule, but we shall be grateful if the House will give us some of the non-controversial Measures on the Paper with a view to getting the House up in reasonable time for the Summer Recess.
Friday will be given to consideration of the Boards of Guardians (Default) Bill, and we hope this will render a late sitting on Thursday unnecessary.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What does the hon. and gallant Gentleman regard as a non-controversial Measure?

Commander EYRES MONSELL: All the Orders on the Paper to-day.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: With regard to the first Order, I see the order is reversed, and the second Vote is being taken first. May I ask if it is suggested that both should be taken to-day, and if the second one, the Emergency Services, Vote 9, is taken, is it proposed to bring it on at any particular hour?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): We are entirely in the hands of the House. I understood it was the general desire that the Estimate for the importation of coal should come first. I hope that will not take more than a reasonable time and will leave ample time to take the Vote for the General Strike at a convenient hour.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both are very important matters and, as far as I can make out, no one below the Gangway has been consulted at all? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some satisfaction.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I shall be glad to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfaction at any time. We will see how the Debate on imported coal progresses and perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will discuss through the usual channels when he would like the other taken.

Mr. MARDY JONES: If there is a desire, as there will be on this side of the House, to debate the coal question up to 11 o'clock, will they agree to that?

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Glasgow Education Authority (Juvenile Delinquency) Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Shoreham Harbour Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Connah's Quay Urban District Council Water Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise an increase of the number of Forestry Commissioners; to empower the Commissioners to make by-laws with respect to land vested in them or under their management or control: and for purposes consequential upon the matters aforesaid." [Forestry Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to North Berwick Burgh Extension." [North Berwick Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

NORTH BERWICK BURGH EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1926–27.

Orders of the Day — UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY SERVICES (IMPORTATION OF COAL).

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, to provide for the purchase and importation of Coal in connection with the Stoppage in the Coal Industry.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): This is an Estimate for purchases of coal from time to time which it has been or may be necessary for the Government to make to preserve essential services. By common consent it has been regarded as obviously undesirable to state the methods by which, and the places in which, and the times when coal is being purchased on behalf of the Government. I am sure the Committee will appreciate that that is a necessary precaution to take. If a Government engage in a commercial transaction in buying, if they are to buy in the best interests of the taxpayer, they must not only have the same facilities for purchasing as are enjoyed by those who engage in the ordinary commercial way in buying coal but, obviously, they must not disclose the source of the purchase or the time when they are going to buy or the manner in which they are going to buy. I am sure the Committee will agree that it would be eminently undesirable that I should be asked as to when and how and where any purchases of coal are to be made.
Of course, there will be the fullest investigation in regard to this matter, as there is in connection with every trading transaction in which the Government engage on a trading account. These trading accounts are submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and he
passes them under review and makes his Report to the House of Commons on them. The accounts are also subject to the consideration of the Public Accounts Committee. If there are any criticisms to be made regarding the method in which the transaction has been conducted, that can be dealt with at the proper time when full information is placed before the House.
The only thing which it is necessary or right that I should say in presenting this Estimate to the Committee is that, without considering any question of the merits or demerits of this unfortunate controversy—it would be out of place, and I think out of order, to do so—it is plainly the duty of whatever Government may be in office for the time being, to ensure the carrying on during the time of crisis of the essential services of the country. For that reason, at this time, as in the case of the previous coal stoppages, it is necessary that the Government should have the power to make whatever purchases are necessary for that purpose. For that purpose we are proposing a Vote of £3,000,000. The purchases will be made exactly as they were on the previous occasion. The £3,000,000, or such amount of it as it is necessary to use, will be used as a working credit for the purchase of coal, the coal being sold to consumers and the purchase price of such coal passing back into the account.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. (Gentleman give the date of the previous occasion?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It was in 1921. The hon. and gallant Member may remember that while other matters were discussed very fully in the House, by common consent it was considered desirable that details of the purchases should not be discussed at that time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I have looked up the Debate, and I find that there was no discussion upon the details.

Mr. BARKER: Why have this Debate if you are going to give no information? You are doing it in the dark.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think we need make this a matter for controversy. There are plenty of other things which are controversial.

Mr. BATEY: We want to know the full facts.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Let me answer the hon. Member in this way. If he found himself in the place of the Government to-day, he would find himself charged with the duty of ensuring that essential services were carried on. He would find that in order to carry on those essential services, where it was necessary to supplement private purchases of coal, the Government must be in a position to take action. In accordance with the regular Parliamentary procedure of the House, if the Government are to engage in a transaction of that kind it is the duty of the Government to come to the House and present an Estimate to cover the transaction.

Mr. BARKER: And give no information?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have already explained to the hon. Member. If the Government are charged with the duty of buying when necessary, it is plainly—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Do you buy it from Russia?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is the duty of the Government, in the interests of the taxpayer, to buy where and when they can buy to the best advantage.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Do you buy it from Russia?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not propose to tell the hon. Member where I shall buy.

Mr. BARKER: You want £3,000,000, and you will not tell us anything.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will tell the hon. Member why. I have already told him. [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members to allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed, without these repeated interruptions.

Mr. BARKER: Is it in Order for the Minister to ask for £3,000,000, and tell the Committee at the beginning of his speech that he will give the Committee no information? It is a monstrous thing.

The CHAIRMAN: I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that. Had he said it, it would not be out of Order.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: rose—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member will have the right to criticise anything which I say in due course. I want to put the matter to the Committee. All that I am taking responsibility for to-day is to engage in a commercial transaction for the buying of coal.

Mr. WALLHEAD: You have no need to do it.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think everybody will realise in every quarter of the House, whatever their views may be about the present dispute, that if coal is to be bought, it ought to be bought at the least possible cost to the taxpayer.

Mr. J. JONES: German coal. 1914, fought the Germans; 1926, buy out the Germans.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Anyone who has hail to buy anything will know that if you have to engage in a transaction of this kind, there is no better way of putting up the price against you than to say exactly how and where and through what channels you are going to buy. My duty is to see that such coal is bought at the cheapest possible price, and if I disclosed in what manner and in what markets coal was going to be bought, I should make that impossible. [Interruption.]

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the Committee—

HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

Mr. J. JONES: There will be no Order for this. It is the biggest outrage.

HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

The CHAIRMAN: No point of Order can arise on this.

Mr. MACLEAN: You did not allow me to finish my sentence. What I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman through you—[HON. MEMBERS "That is not a point of Order!"]—is this: Will he at a later stage, submit to this Committee a statement as to the places and firms from which he is purchasing coal?

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have already told the Committee that that can be done in the regular and appointed
way. The whole of the trading accounts in connection with the purchases of coal will be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General—

Mr. J. JONES: Who is he?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: He is an official of the House appointed for the purpose?

Mr. JONES: What for?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: For the purpose of examining these accounts, and reporting to the House.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You are buying from Russia and Germany in order to beat British miners.

Mr. JONES: Who appointed him?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE - LISTER: The House of Commons.

Mr. JONES: Which House of Commons?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: He was appointed by this House, for the express purpose of investigating and reporting to the House upon any such trading transaction. When they are completed, they will be submitted to this officer of the House, who will report to the House upon them—[Interruption]—and any criticism which it is desired to make upon the transactions can be made then. [Interruption.]

Mr. J. JONES: You are buying German coal—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is not the case that I have ever been unwilling to give information to the House of Commons. I am afraid I have often bored the Committee with a great deal of information, and at Question time, as also in debate, I have never been slow in supplying information asked for by hon. Members. [Interruption.]

Mr. MARDY JONES: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to be buying coal for the purposes of the nation, when members of his family are heavy shareholders in coal mines? [Interruption.]

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In view of that rather unusual interruption, I should desire to make a short statement. It is within the knowledge of every
member of this Committee that, long before the first dispute in the mining industry arose, I not only disclosed to the Prime Minister and my colleagues, but to everybody else the indirect interest I had in coal mining. I tendered my resignation. [Interruption.]

Mr. LANSBURY: You ought to sit down.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I tendered my resignation, and it was only upon pressure, not only by the Prime Minister, but by other people in all quarters, that I consented to carry on in my present office. It is within the recollection of hon. and right hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench that desired the Prime Minister to intimate to the Leaders of other political parties in this House what my indirect interest in this matter was, and what action I proposed to take.

Mr. J. JONES: Listen to the pecksniffs.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I did not think I should be called upon for an explanation of that kind in reply to any criticism of any Member on any side of House. [Interruption.]

Mr. MARDY JONES: On a point of Order.

The CHAIRMAN: No point of Order can arise. This may be a matter for public criticism. The right hon. Gentleman has made his statement, but no point of Order can arise in connection with the matter.

Mr. MARDY JONES: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been permitted to make a personal explanation, shall I be permitted to say why I raised the question?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will have an opportunity later in the Debate.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The essential services of the country must be carried on, and the Government are responsible for seeing that those services are carried on. [Interruption.]

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Buying German coal, in order to beat their own folk.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is the admitted duty of this Government, and it was recognised by our predecessors in
office, that, in a period of national emergency, it must make certain that the essential services are maintained. If it is the duty of the Government to ensure that these essential services are maintained, it is plainly the duty of the Government to supplement private enterprise where necessary. In order to do that, the Government desires to have this Vote, and I say plainly that just as it is the duty of the Government to discharge that function it is equally their duty to do it in the most economical way. It would be absolutely impossible to do that if we disclosed the time and manner and means of our purchases. We should be squandering money. I only add this, that in the purchase of coal the Government has no desire whatever to interfere with the independent purchases of coal which are being made at the present time. It is the plain duty of every essential service and private industry that can carry on to place their own orders, and no sort of obstacle will be placed in their way by the Government.
Coal bought in this way will not be requisitioned. That, I think, is understood, and purchases have been made and are being made in the usual way by many companies and undertakings. This Vote is only required to supplement, not to supplant, the purchases made by individual undertakings and firms. The Government have no desire to supplant them in any way. On the contrary, we wish to encourage them to make their own purchases, and we have no desire or intention of relieving them of their duty. But it is necessary that we should be in a position to supplement the independent purchases where shortages would otherwise occur in public services or essential trades, such as food production. It is for that purpose that I ask the Committee to give the Government the means of carrying out what at this time, whatever may be our view as to the merits of the controversy, is their plain and obvious duty.

Mr. G. HALL: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
4.0 P.M.
I rather welcome the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman in Debates dealing with the coal industry, and especially in connection with a Vote of this kind, seeing that it was only a very short time ago that he himself took the initia-
tive in a campaign for the purpose of getting British people to buy British goods. It is not now so much a question of the purchase of British goods as it is a question of buying foreign goods for the purpose of prolonging the stoppage, knowing that it is only as a result of the prolongation of the stoppage that the Government's policy of an extension of hours in the mines can succeed. There is no need for this Vote. The Government have power under the Emergency Regulations to have the coal required in this country produced in this country, and, if they put into operation that part of the Emergency Powers Act, then the necessary coal can be provided in this country instead of going to Germany for it.
I can quite understand the reluctance with which the right hon. Gentleman attempted to explain this Vote. I expected to have some information with regard to the stocks of coal available in the country at the present time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, it would be very interesting, and I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee, who always pride themselves on being the business men in the House, when asked to support a Vote for the spending of £3,000,000 in the purchase of coal, would have wanted to know whether it is really required. Still, I quite understand even their reluctance to know the facts in connection with this matter, seeing that this money is to be used for a purpose which they desire, namely, prolonging the stoppage and thus forcing the miners to have a longer working day than any miners in Europe. Let us see for what this money is to be used. The right hon. Gentleman said it was to he used solely for essential services. We find from the Vote itself that it is to be used for the purpose of the maintenance of supplies to public utility, food-producing, and other essential undertakings, and to domestic consumers. I would like in know whether they have any idea how much coal this £3,000,000 will purchase. I asked the Secretary for Mines to-day whether he could give us the amount of coal imported into this country since the 1st May, from what countries it came, and the cost of the coal. The Secretary for Mines could not give me that information. He did give me the figures so far as the amount of
coal that was imported is concerned, but he could not give me the actual cost, and there is a very good reason why. Coal cannot be imported into this country at anything like the price that it can be produced in this country.
First of all, it was a question of the suspension of the Seven Hours Act. The Government know now that since the introduction of the Bill to suspend that Act the miners have been more determined than ever to continue the stoppage, and, knowing this and that time is the only thing that is going to defeat the miners, they come forward with a proposal to spend £3,000,000 for the purpose of prolonging the stoppage so as to force the miners to accept an eight-hours day. Look at the notices posted at every pithead. Of course, the only exception that the Government have taken to those proposals is that Yorkshire will not carry out the 1924 agreement with regard to the distribution of the surplus. There is no exception taken to the reduction of wages throughout the country, no exception taken to the reduction of 10 per cent. in Durham and Northumberland, and no exception taken to the temporary proposals in regard to wages based upon the 1994 Agreement, but simply, in order to have a little bit of Press notoriety, the other place have held up the Eight Hours Bill for 24 hours to try to bluff the miners that the Government are not as bad as they have been painted.
It would be very interesting to see the importance that is given to this question of coal. The only interest that some people take in the question of the coal supplies of this country, other than at a time of stoppage, is to take what they can out of the industry. Coal is the very foundation of the industrial life of this country. Apart from the exportation of coal—and our exports amount only to one-fifth of the coal produced in this country—it is necessary for industry and for domestic purposes to have a supply of something like 180,000,000 tons a year, and here are the Government coming forward hoping that they will be able to continue industry by spending, in the first instance, £3,000,000, and then using the proceeds of the sale of coal for the purpose of other supplies during the continuation of the stoppage. Let us see how far these supplies are going to assist industry. The Secretary for Mines told
us that during the last nine weeks, 1,000,000 tons of coal have been imported into this country. Here we have the spectacle of a country that never has any need to import coal, except during a stoppage, prepared, for the purpose of defeating the miners, to spend this money on the importation of coal. Hon. Members opposite should know that the economic, industrial and financial structure of this country depends upon our coal supplies, and they cannot look with easy concern on this country now turning from a country exporting coal to a country importing coal.
I have some figures that the Secretary for Mines gave my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling), and they are very illuminating. France, who in 1925 took 10,250,000 tons of coal from us, exported to this country in the first eight weeks of the stoppage 43,000 tons of coal. Germany, to whom in 1925 we exported 4,000,000 tons, have now changed from a country receiving coal from us to a country exporting coal to this country. Hundreds of thousands of miners were called to the colours between 1914 and 1918—to prevent the Germans coming over to this country to exploit the miners, and now the German miners are being used by the Government for the purpose of defeating the miners of this country and compelling them to work an eight-hour day. The Government are now prepared to purchase coal produced under conditions which will be very much better than the conditions under which coal will be produced in this country if the Eight Hours Bill is put into operation, and they are prepared to do that for the purpose of defeating the miners. The standard of life of the miners of this country will be depressed, and, as a result, the standard of life of the miners on the Continent, in turn, will suffer a similar depression. I would commend that to hon. Members opposite.
Let us deal with the question of prices. The President of the Board of Trade was not in a position to tell us where this coal is to be purchased, how it is to be purchased, and what price is to be paid for it. He and the members of the Government can depend upon it that the coal imported into this country will cost them nearly 100 per cent. more than coal can be produced in this country. Take the figures for March. We exported 4,500,000 tons of coal at a cost f.o.b. of
17s. 10d. a ton. If you take the evidence given by Sir William Larke, on behalf of the National Federation of iron and Steel Manufacturers, at the Coal Commission, you will find that he said the iron and steel manufacturers in this country in September of last year were able to purchase coal at a cost of from 11s. 11d. to 13s. 6d. per ton, or slightly in excess of what had to be paid for coal in 1913.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the need that there was to introduce a similar Vote in 1921. Let us take the experience of 1921 with regard to the purchase and the price of coal then. According to the evidence given by Dr. Charles Carpenter, on behalf of the Gas Companies' Protection Association, at the Royal Commission, during the 1912 stoppage, the South Metropolitan Gas Company had to pay an additional sum of £89,000 for the purchase of imported coal, and in 1921 they had to pay £350,000 additional for the purchase of coal. We have these illuminating figures that in 1921, when coal was at its highest price, the best Durham gas coal was purchased by this company at 30s. per ton. During the 13 weeks of the stoppage of 1921 the company imported or purchased 109,000 tons of coal. They could get Durham coal for 30s. a ton. By the time the coal that was imported was brought to their works it cost them 69s. 10d. a ton. The position is very similar during this year. Manufacturers, who are represented by hon. Members opposite, should be very concerned about it.
Take the position as far as it is explained in the "Iron and Coal Trades Review" for last week. That journal states that the imports into all the Humber ports, including Hull, to the middle of last week—that was 1st July —were about 90,000 tons. In large proportion it is German coal, but some is Belgian and some French. The prices vary. Silesian coal, free on rail at Hull, unscreened steam, is 47s. a ton, unwashed 46s. a ton, unscreened gas coal 48s.; Belgian washed nuts 47s. a ton, and slack, which is almost given away in this country and was given away before the stoppage, 38s. to 42s. a ton. The demand from the inland centres is not large, as delivered prices
at works are considered rather high and beyond the capacity of any but the most favoured trades to pay.
That is the position as far as the North country is concerned. It is interesting to see what the position is in some of our large industrial centres. I am quoting again from the "Iron and Coal Trades Review."
In Cardiff more cargoes of foreign coal have arrived for local industries, and further supplies have been arranged for, but most of the iron and steel, tinplate, galvanised sheets, and other works have been obliged to stop entirely or reduce their operations to limited proportions, although in a few cases work is being carried on with foreign coal. The fact that the cost of imported coal is practically double that of the usual home supplies precludes its general use.
The same thing can be said of Birmingham and of Stoke. I have here a quotation relating to Stoke:
Practically all the large factories are now closed down on account of the lack of suitable fuel for pottery furnaces. Supplies of Continental fuels continue to come into the district. In many cases it would appear that the foreign qualities have proved to be of very low grade, although the prices are approximately two and a-half the normal price of local qualities.
The same thing can be said of Manchester. I was interested in the statement made by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Hilton) during the Debate on Thursday last. He then said:
We traders to-day have contracts for coal for the rest of 1926 in convention with seven different places of which I have intimate knowledge, at an average price of between 19s. 6d. and 22s. 6d. per ton. delivered. Last week we bought at 67s. a ton certain stuff which was dumped on us, and it was poor coal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1926; col. 1445, Vol. 197.]
That is the position throughout the country. Hon. Members think that the Government speculation of £3,000,000 is going to be a very satisfactory one, but, as in 1921, they will find that they have very large stocks of this unwanted coal on their hands, and the £3,000,000 that we are asked to vote to-day will be very largely lost. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), whose experience in 1921 was such that he has prevailed upon the Government on more than one occasion to do everything they can to prevent a continuation of this stoppage, has told us on many occasions that the stoppage of 1921 cost the country £350,000,000. Now we see that the
Government, some of the Members of which were responsible for the position in 1921, have not in any way benefited by that experience. In their desire to lengthen the hours of the men employed in the mining industry they are prepared, not only to put the Eight Hours Bill on the Statute Book, but to spend a considerable amount of public money for the purpose of again defeating the miners. Of course, their consciences will not allow them to subsidise the mining industry, but they are prepared to subsidise anything or everything for the purpose of defeating the miners.
The hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon), in a speech delivered a short time ago, estimated the cost of the stoppage, or of the loss of trade to this country as a result of the stoppage, at £8,000,000 a day. He said that if the stoppage continued for another fortnight it was going to cost the country no less than £10,000,000 a day. That is £48,000,000 a week. In the nine weeks of the stoppage this country has lost, as a result of the action of the Government, more money than would have been required to pay all the miners all the wages that they would have got for three years. There is no need to wonder that in this country at the present time there are 4,000,000 men, women and children, directly dependent upon the mining industry, who are in a position of privation and destitution, and in some instances of starvation. Industries are gradually being paralysed; hundreds of thousands of men are unemployed, many of them not directly connected with the mining industry. Our Poor Law institutions are almost breaking down. All of this trouble has been caused by the lack of vision, the bankruptcy in ideas, and the total incapacity of the Government.

Mr. DIXEY: I realise that this is a very important Debate, and my only excuse for intervening for a few moments is the fact that so many extraordinary statements have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite that I think it is high time some Members on this side of the House put their own private point of view. I am as much interested in the miner, his wife and his family, as are many hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite,
and, so far as knowledge of actual work is concerned, I have experienced in my own short life possibly quite as much actual work as some hon. Members opposite. [Laughter.] It is quite easy for hon. Gentlemen opposite to laugh when anyone on these Benches talks about work, but my experience of a lot of Socialists is that they talk far more about work for other people and do less than other people, and, so far as actual money and profit are concerned, I have yet to find a Socialist who, when it comes to himself, either despises profits or neglects to take them. With regard to the subject of this Debate, it has amused me to hear so many hon. Gentlemen opposite adopting the patriotic standpoint in favour of buying British goods and expressing a dislike of any contact with foreign products. Often enough Members on this side who hold Protectionist views have pleaded with hon. Gentlemen opposite to give some support to Imperial Preference and the Protection of home industries, but the invariable reply has been, "We do not care where we buy as long as we buy the cheapest goods." It is invidious and absolutely futile for hon. Members opposite, with one or two honourable exceptions, to come into this House and talk about their love of buying British goods, seeing that on every platform in the country they show their preference for foreign products every time.
I strongly support the Vote. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know quite well—they are not allowed to express themselves freely—that the present situation has arisen entirely through the stupidity and the obstinacy of the miners' leaders. [Interruption.] I am not now quoting from a Conservative journal. I do not want to give offence to anyone. I know that hon. Members opposite believe in people expressing their opinions freely. I am pointing out that this obstinacy of Mr. Cook and Mr. Herbert Smith is not a matter merely of Conservative opinion, but is admitted by the Trades Union Council. You cannot have your cake and eat it. If hon. Members opposite take up the position that the general strike was quite right and that the miners always acted properly, all I can say is that it is an extremely funny position now to have the officials of the Trades Union Council addressing meetings and conferences, at
every one of which they say that the miners' leaders made a great mistake. We have been told that the miners' leaders were out of town at the critical moment, and there was great difficulty in finding where they were. It is idiotic. There appeared in an illustrious journal, with which the name of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley) is connected, an article by a gentleman—I assume it was not written by a Conservative—which says definitely that it is no good the miners' leaders talking about starvation wages; and he puts some of the wages in the mining areas at between £7 and £12 a week.

Mr. BATEY: Do you believe that those figures are true? I am prepared to say that they are a lie.

Mr. DIXEY: I want my hon. Friends opposite to be perfectly clear about what I am saying. I understand that the figure given on the authority I have just quoted was actually from£to £13, and I know the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness will not think that I want to mislead the Committee in this matter. I do not allege that these are correct figures. That was alleged in a responsible journal, by a responsible individual, because we may take it that the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness would allow nobody but a responsible man to write for his paper. Those figures were laid down quite clearly, and I say to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they cannot come into this Committee and say that hon. Members on this side are callous, that we do not believe in what we say, and that we are out to starve the miners and cut down their standard of life, while at the same time, they go out into the open and, in excuse for their own conduct, make statements such as that which I have just quoted. What are the facts? [Interruption.] Mere abuse is not argument, and it is time that a number of hon. Gentlemen on the other side learned the facts. The facts are that some hon. Members opposite want to go out to the working man and make it appear that they stand up for him, while, at the same time, they know that the people principally responsible for the present situation and for this Vote are the leaders of the Miners' Federation. They cannot get away from that responsibility. I wish to be perfectly definite, and I say that if
responsible mine agents in the country and the real hard workers were asked to-morrow, "Will you get rid of Mr. Cook or Mr. Smith?"—[Interruption.] I do not say that they should get rid of Mr. Cook altogether; he is too valuable. If hon. Members opposite will allow me to complete my sentence, I was about to say that if responsible mine agents in this country were asked tomorrow, "Do you think, if you changed your negotiators and had some gentlemen other than Mr. Cook and Mr. Smith to represent you, that you might then arrive at some settlement with the mine-owners?" I believe they would all answer in the affirmative.

Mr. J. JONES: In the infirmary!

Mr. DIXEY: It is very unfair of hon. Members opposite to allege that we stand up for the coalowners. [HON. MEMBERS: "So you do!"] We do no such thing! [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member who moved the reduction of the Vote did not make what was exactly a conciliatory speech, but he was heard without interruption, and I hope the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) will receive the same attention.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is it not the fact that the hon. Member who moved the reduction, addressed his remarks to the Chair and not to the Members on the other side of the Committee?

The CHAIRMAN: I hope all hon. Members on both sides will address their remarks to me.

Mr. DIXEY: I apologise, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not think for one moment that I want to be offensive. I merely wish to emphasise my own point of view and the point of view of certain of my hon. Friends on this side, that we consider the responsibility in this matter to be with the officials of the Miners' Federation, and that is our excuse for doing something which we do not like to do. I am opposed to buying anything German or anything Russian, and I do not like to receive money either from Germany or from Russia. Some of my hon. Friends opposite are not so particular about that. I am not afraid of facing any audience in any constituency on this point. I support this Vote
because I think it necessary, and because I am strongly of opinion that all sane people in this country have begun to realise that we are not to be controlled by the officials of the Miners' Federation or any such body.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The discussion this afternoon seems likely to take us into the heart of the mining dispute, and I have no doubt the Committee welcome every opportunity of having further light thrown upon what has now become an intensely difficult and painful situation. But the Vote, before us is not going to decide the dispute or any element in it. It is not likely either to postpone or to hasten a settlement It is, indeed, simply a Vote brought down here by the President of the Board of Trade for an experiment in State trading. In this atmosphere of paradox, we have the remarkable fact that the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat was making an impassioned speech in favour of State trading—in favour of Socialism on a huge scale—to deal with what I think is a unique situation, while, on the other hand, my hon. Friends above the Gangway, who in normal times would welcome State trading and would be very glad to see an extension of the municipal sale of coal, for instance, as one means of getting over the troubles of the coal industry, are opposed to a Socialistic proposal this afternoon. It really shows how confused we become when we take what is really a departmental transaction and try to translate it into a means of solving or exacerbating what is one of the most awfully tangled problems ever faced either by leaders of Labour or by employers or by Governments.
The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Vote disclaimed having any personal interest in it. I, for one, absolutely accept, as I always have accepted, his assurance in that respect. He was perfectly candid and frank when this dispute first arose as to what his interests were. None of us can free ourselves entirely from personal interests in any of these matters. In every part of the Committee we are all interested, directly or indirectly, and it would be a very sorry thing if this Chamber were composed of men who were not in touch with the actual problems of life. What is necessary in the House of Commons is that there
should be a full disclosure of interests, and that those who have direct personal interests should not use their public position, whether as Ministers or Members, for their private aims. I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman has been punctilious in this matter. From such information as I have been able to obtain, he has taken no part whatever in the negotiations between the Government and the mine-owners or between the Government and the miners.
This personal question, however, has nothing whatever to do with this Vote. It is quite clear that this Vote can have no influence whatever on a settlement of the dispute. To-day, in this country, we consume about £180,000,000 worth of coal in a year for various utility, manufacturing and domestic purposes. A mere importation of £3,000,000 worth from abroad is but a fraction—a speck of dust —in the total amount necessary for the carrying on of this country. The pressure on all industries now has become most acute. There is not a single big industry which is not either closed down or is in process of closing down. Blast furnaces are cold; railway services are restricted; factories and works are being closed one by one; shipyards are idle, and the extent of unemployment at the end of July, or at the end of August if the dispute should be so far prolonged, is far beyond the imagination of even the most lurid mind. We really cannot tell where we are drifting to in the next few months, if this is not brought to an end. Therefore everybody ought to do his best to put his wisdom and his good temper into the common stock to meet our national necessity. I trust that nothing which is said on this Vote will be likely to make the problem more difficult. What has happened during the last few weeks may be regrettable, or we may have made some advance towards a settlement. For my part, I do not see that we are much nearer a settlement but, at all events, it is in the interests of everyone that this dispute should be brought to an end.
While discussions are going on and negotiations are proceeding, we run the danger, not only of our manufacturing industries being stopped but of a great many of our public utility concerns, on which the life of the community depends, being short of fuel. Our waterworks in
many districts will be so short of coal, unless some supplies are obtained from abroad, that we shall have to ration water next month. Gas companies, electric light and power companies must be kept going if the community is to survive. The railways themselves must, somehow or other, be able to provide for their traffic. Up to the present, I gather that most of the coal which has come from abroad has come by private importation—by that private enterprise which the right hon. Gentleman must admire and to which I am very partial myself. Private enterprise, up to the present, has relieved seine of the prime necessities of the situation. If I may say so, where I blamed the right hon. Gentleman in connection with his statement was that he did not tell us what were the public utility concerns which he had in mind in bringing in this Vote. Surely the large gas companies and electric power companies are capable of taking care of themselves.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I spoke when the Committee was not very quiet, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not hear me, but I said that this Vote was intended to supplement and not in any way to supplant. The big companies, I pointed out, were bringing in their own stocks, and I look to them to go on bringing in those stocks. It is only where undertakings which are essential have not supplies that the Government will come in to assist, and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has emphasised the point that all big companies and undertakings who can meet their own requirements through the ordinary channels of purchase should do so.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is necessary that it should be known by the municipal authorities as well as by those who control the great utility supplies, that they must depend primarily upon their own enterprise. They must not come like paupers to the Government asking for assistance. They are quite capable of managing their own affairs. The risk I see in the Vote which we are now invited to adopt, is that it may give some excuse to some authorities, some companies or some concerns to depend on what the Government will do for them rather than look after their affairs themselves. That may even apply to a good many municipal authorities. A great many of them are
large consumers of coal. They are very proud of their autonomy. Do not let them get away with the impression that the Government are going to do their work for them. That is exactly the risk which is run by coming to the House of Commons and asking for a Vote of this kind without making a very clear statement as to how far it will go and how far it will not go. As for breaking the strike, it is perfectly ridiculous to think that £3,000,000 worth of coal would have the least effect one way or the other. The only thing it can do is to keep some of the public utility concerns going, and save some of our municipal and social life from destruction.
One point I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this. I am not at all sure, and I am not persuaded up to the present—I have heard nothing yet that will convince me—that this is the right way of dealing with the problem. I believe the best thing to do is to say to the public utility concerns, which are not looking after their affairs, that if they fail in the functions placed upon them by Parliament, they will sacrifice their statutory powers. It is much better to tell them that if they cannot do their work then their work must be brought to an end. It is much better that they should understand that the State cannot come to their assistance; that all it can do is to keep our ports open and to see there is free handling of this fuel for the necessities of life, and when that is done, I feel sure there is quite enough independent spirit and ingenuity and enterprise among these bodies to carry on without Government assistance.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I support the reduction of this Vote, and I agree with some of the words that have fallen from the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) in pointing out that there are deplorable conditions arising from the continuance of the coal dispute. It seems a cruel thing to say, but a stoppage of the supplies of coal is the one weapon possessed by one side to this dispute. It is the only weapon they have. The question in dispute between the two sides is whether there are profits in the industry sufficient to pay a living wage to the men who do the work. An hon. Member shakes his head, but there are plenty of unbiassed observers in this country who will say that there are
profits in the industry if it is properly conducted. That is the miners' case. Their side of the case is that a reasonable wage can be paid if you, on the other side, will conduct your industry along common-sense, reasonable and business-like lines. When a dispute takes place, the weapon with which the owners fight is the weapon of hunger and want, compelling the miners to accept their terms, and the weapon of the miners is refusing to supply a commodity which cannot be supplied without their labour. The Government come in, and take sides very definitely against the men and on behalf of the owners. I think there can be no question about that. The hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) raised the question of the wages that are paid to the miners, and said the whole trouble rested on the stupidity of the President and Secretary of the Miners' Federation. I do not know whether or not the figures he quoted are justified, but I should say that the number of men, if there be any, who receive as much as £13 per week is so extremely limited as to render the statement itself ridiculous and foolish in the extreme.
The right hon. Member for West Swansea referred to the question of interests. I have heard friends of my own, on this side, refer to the President of the Board of Trade in connection with this dispute as playing the game up to the present. It was known that he had interests here, but it has been said on this side, among my own friends, in conversation, that at any rate he has refrained from taking a definite part in this matter. I am bound to say that it would have been better if he had refrained from moving this Vote, for it does not matter how we look at this question; this is an attempt to break the miners. The Government have tried all sorts of tricks. They have practically the whole of the Press against the men. There are tremendous forces brought against the men, and there is no doubt that the Government are using their influence for the purpose of attempting to keep them in the state in which they are, and to break their resistance to what I call these contemptible proposals of the owners; by every means in their power. It is a very bad business, I consider, because it is
a fact, and the right hon. Gentleman has admitted it, that interests of his own will be served if these men are beaten, and he has taken action that helps to bring about that result.
I hold that there is no need whatever for the Government to go in for buying coal at all. If they had exercised the powers they possess, they could have settled this strike long ago. It all comes back to the question of the policy that has been pursued. The Government's policy, we maintain, has been a bad policy, a policy that has backed the owners as against the men, and that is why we oppose this Vote. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite take the view they do with regard to the measures proposed. I remember the time when patriotic ladies, dressed in colourful costumes, members and dames of the Primrose League or the Empire Union or something of that sort, sat at street corners stopping passers-by and attempting to get them to sign petitions or make statements or affirmations to the effect that never again, so help them God, would they buy a pennyworth of anything from Germany. That was a thing we saw done for months and years during the War, chiefly by persons connected with the Conservative party, who are now actively engaged in purchasing coal from Germany for the purpose, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) pointed out, of breaking the resistance of the miners whom they wanted in their service to fight those very Germans a few years ago. It is an illustration of the complete hollowness of what is called the patriotic motive during war, and it is further illustration of the fact that when it comes to a question of the interests of groups of powerful individuals, there is nothing in the world that can stop them from having their own way.
Many of the hon. Members opposite belong to an Order which takes for its motto, noblesse oblige. It is the universal motto of the aristocratic order, but whatever it may do inside the Order, it does not run outside, for nobless oblige does not extend over the social frontier of the Order that takes this motto unto itself. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), I believe, asked a question here some time ago as to why the general strike' had been brought about and why the men were on
strike. He should know, at any rate, that the men who came out on strike to help these miners did a finer thing than the Government are doing now. They backed up the motto that other gentlemen have discarded, and they said it was to their honour to do so, and it is to their honour that they were prepared to sacrifice their all in order to assist the men who are now fighting so bitterly in this struggle in the coal industry. It is to their eternal honour, and I should have thought that hon. Members opposite who pride themselves on esprit de corps, instead of doing all whey could to foster treachery and blacklegism among the workers, would have honoured the men who stood firm to their own class in such a struggle.
That is what we intend to do. We shall fight the Government upon every possible occasion, so far as this dispute is concerned. We shall fight them as long as we can to-day, and they will not get their money if we can possibly help it. Their industries shall languish, and they ought to languish. The pressure of the want of coal is the one thing that the men must rely upon if they are to win in this fight. Let the pressure be put on the owners to come to terms with their men to give them decent treatment. The bona fides of the owners in this matter can be tested already by what took place yesterday in the House of Lords. Remember what is taking place in Yorkshire—

The CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to refer to Debates in another place, and we cannot deal with pending legislation on this Vote.

Mr. WALLHEAD: It is not a question of pending legislation.

Mr. TINKER: On a point of Order. In the Debate in the House of Lords yesterday, Lord Daryngton made reference to the right hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh), and mentioned the House of Commons. If the members of the other place can do that, I claim that Members here ought to have the same right.

The CHAIRMAN: It is not for me to criticise the Lord Chancellor for not calling a Noble Lord to order, but it is a very old Rule in this House that
reference cannot be made to Debates or statements in another place with a view to answering them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that there are no rules of order in the other place?

The CHAIRMAN: I am not acquainted, nor is it my duty to become acquainted, with the rules in another place.

Mr. J. JONES: They live in Do-as-you-like Land.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I was conscious that I had infringed a little the Rules of this House. I was saying that it was almost impossible to accept the bona fides of the owners. It would appear that already arrangements have been come to as between the Government and the owners, with regard to the wages that might be paid under legislation which the Government have already passed in this House, namely, the Eight Hours Bill, and even before the seal has been set, even before His Majesty's Assent has been given, the owners are beginning to infringe the agreement which they have made. Talk about gentlemen's agreements! They cannot be kept even between the gentlemen who make them themselves, and so far as asking the miners to accept the bond of persons of this description is concerned, I say it is asking more than you have a right to ask under the circumstances. I hold that if the Government had exercised a reasonable policy, they might have settled this matter without having to come to this House and ask for this Vote for the purpose of purchasing coal. I sincerely hope the Vote will not be passed, but I know that it will be carried by the well-trained battalions behind the Government, representing, as they do, the sinister interests that permeate our industry, representing finance, representing bodies and individuals who hate men to assert their independence and who hate the resistance of the working classes, individuals who really believe in the Conservative idea of a kind of divine dispensation under which you get the establishment of a slave State with the aristocracy in complete control. If only they can do something, such as using the powers of this House,
backed up by finance and economic power, to drive these men to a condition of servitude, I am convinced that they will be very glad to do it.
All that I can say is that the day will come when the role will be reversed. All that I can say is that the time will come when the powers of this House will be used definitely for the purpose of asserting the right of the working classes, the real people who count in the country, the people at the bottom of things, to a decent livelihood for the labours that they perform and the services that they render. At the present time the forms of this House are being used for the purpose of driving a million men back to poverty and economic servitude. It is a disgrace to our common humanity, a disgrace to our social order, and a reflection upon what you represent, the powers that have controlled you, the powers that control finance, wonderful powers, marvellous powers, such powers that you cannot guarantee to the men whose labour is essential to you a decent livelihood for the service that they render. In order to prevent them having that, you use these powers and forms to buy coal from anybody, friend or enemy, black or white. For the purpose of driving your own people into subjection, you give away hundreds of millions to the men whom you called your enemies and whom you called your allies a short time ago, but for your own people you have only the sword of starvation, the blight of penury in the home. I say that your civilisation is a damnable one, that allows you to use the powers you do for the purpose for which you are now using them.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. RADFORD: I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, but there are certain points which have arisen in the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) and the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) to which I feel there should be a reply. The right hon. Member for West Swansea rather questioned the wisdom of the Government intervening in the purchase of coal, as it might, possibly, undermine the independence of, and the action which should be taken by, those essential under
takings, which he understands, I think, could furnish their own fuel. I think there is something to be said in favour of the Government buying, because it can make bigger contracts, spread over a period, possibly, of a few weeks, which is conducive to cheap buying, and, after all, it can get its money back from those undertakings. Then, it was said that £3,000,000 would not go very far in the purchase of coal. I take it that this amount having been purchased and sold, and the Government recouping themselves by its sale, that £3,000,000 may be turned over again and again, as often as is required. We all hope the end will not be long, but if the strike be protracted, that will, obviously, enable fresh supplies to be purchased without coming to the House again.
I gather from the hon. Member for Aberdare that he accuses the Government of being responsible for the coal stoppage, and of having taken the side of the coal-owners. I want to repudiate that in the most emphatic manner, and I will not content myself with repudiating it, but will go a little further, if the hon. Member will allow me. The Miners' Federation, in their demand that there should not be a penny off the pay, or a minute on the day, were not embarking on a fight against the coalowners or the Government, but on a fight against economic law. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but you cannot pay more out of an industry than you put into it. I have not heard any hon. Members opposite yet question the impartiality of the Coal Commission, or the accuracy of their findings. Their Report states plainly that 73 per cent. of the coal which was being produced, was being produced at a loss.

The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that this is a Vote for the purchase of coal for a certain amount. I think it is hardly desirable, if in order at all, to go into the origin of the dispute.

Mr. RADFORD: I am sorry I have transgressed. I will leave that side, but with regard to the purchase of coal being in any way directed against the miners, I say that is entirely untrue. The Government are not buying this coal in order to support the coalowners. They are buying it because they represent the people of this country, and it is the people of this country for whom this coal
is being bought. Hon. Members opposite, and particularly the hon. Member who moved the reduction of the Vote, have pointed out the disastrous effects of this coal stoppage on the country. The hon. Member heaved statistics on statistic, fact on fact, to show how our country is being absolutely ruined by this coal stoppage, and his only solution for the stoppage was that no coal should be purchased, that we should be compelled to give in to the demands of the Miners' Federation. Is that a reasonable attitude for hon. Members to adopt?

Mr. WALLHEAD: The miners have made no demands whatever.

Mr. RADFORD: I have already been called to order, and I hesitate to incur the just wrath of the Chairman. Therefore, I cannot reply to the hon. Member as I would wish; but it is untrue to say the miners have made no demands. They have demanded to receive the rate of pay they had been receiving, and to work the same hours. Obviously, it is impossible to go on trading on losses, and the alternative is a Government subsidy. That is what, in effect, they are demanding. I am perfectly convinced that if half-a-dozen hon. Members in this House representing mining constituencies, and themselves ex-miners—I mention no names or constituencies—but half-a-dozen men whose honesty is transparent, and whose knowledge of the coal trade is at least equal to that of those now representing the Miners' Federation—if they were the miners' leaders, they would have reached a decision fair to the miners and fair to the country.
The miners have shown beyond question—it has never been questioned—their absolute loyalty to one another. When this coal stoppage first came about there were pits and whole areas where owners could afford, and were prepared to go on paying, the rate of pay and to agree to the period of hours the miners demanded. There were other areas which were quite uneconomic on that basis. Instead, the miners in the good areas have shown their loyalty to their colleagues, who were less favourably circumstanced, by refusing to work, although no notices were posted in Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Cannock Chase. The owners were prepared to go on, after the subsidy terminated at the end of April,
at the rate of pay and the hours previously worked. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not now."] The miners themselves handed in their notices, loyally came out, and have shared in the privations and sufferings from that day to this. We know the miners are loyal to one another, and are prepared to bear sacrifices. Would it not be a much wiser and saner thing that the miners should agree to different minimum wages for different areas, and that those men in the areas where a high minimum wage can be paid, should set aside a certain percentage of their high earnings to augment the low earnings in the areas where only a very poor wage can be paid under economic conditions? I beg to support the Vote before the Committee.

Mr. J. HUDSON: In the discussion which has recently taken place in Germany as to the property of the late German royal family, there was the question of including the ownership of land, and the ownership, in certain instances, of mines and mining property, and I have no doubt that, if the truth could be found, certain of the coal which is now to be bought from Germany to break the miners' resistance has actually been secured from property out of which, directly or indirectly, that same Kaiser who was to pay will actually draw gain. It is something upon which the constituents of the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Radford) can reflect. Some of them are workers—I know them well in South Salford—in the Pendleton Colliery, and constituents in the neighbouring constituency of West Salford are workers there, and the Vote we are now discussing is for a purpose which may mean far more of gain to the Kaiser than it is to the constituents whom the hon. Gentleman is representing. Indeed, it is this very simple issue which to-day is coming home to more and more of our people. They are realising how, at a time of industrial difficulty like the one we are passing through, all international boundaries are forgotten by the class and by the interests which desire to keep the workers in their place. Would to Heaven the workers might realise that in war time, as they are now being taught to realise it in the suffering which you impose upon them in peace time!
I do not think at any time in my propaganda career—and I have been
doing the best I could to promulgate those doctrines, so much disliked by hon. Members opposite, of pacifism, internationalism and socialism these last 20 years—I do not think there has been any time in which miners in particular have been so ready to understand and accept the doctrine, that, in the long run, their masters think not of international boundaries, and will do all they can to use even the forces of an enemy in the international field to defeat the interests of the workers at home. It is because we realise to-day that out of this money which is now to be spent—£3,000,000 in the Vote, or whatever part will be actually expended in the long run—

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): It may be that the whole of this money will be used. If the stoppage goes on, it will be used in the interests of the country.

Mr. HUDSON: If necessary, the whole of it, but the White Paper suggests that only part may be spent. The White Paper suggests that you will sell the coal at such price that you may be able to recoup yourselves for the £3,000,000, or the part you expend. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should interrupt me on that point. If he has read the White Paper, and, indeed, the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, showed that it is the intention, as far as possible, to save spending finally this £3,000,000. That is all I was suggesting.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: We are agreed.

Mr. HUDSON: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's apology. The main point I wish to make I had made before the interruption. It is a point which will be very much referred to in the weeks to come, and in the years to come. Personally, I do not believe that by the bringing of this coal from abroad you are going to do anything to lighten the country's difficulties. You are rather giving the impression, particularly by the sort of incomplete information which has been given to us by the President of the Board of Trade, that in some way or other you have got a great power up your sleeve, by which you will bring the country through safely again. You will
not. There never has been, in the history of our land, such a determination amongst the workers to resist the oppression which is now being sought to be imposed upon them. Whether you bring in this coal or not—very possibly because you bring in it—you deepen the determination of the miners—and the miners' wives—to resist. I was shocked over this last week-end to see many hundreds of the miners' wives in the Wigan area, and to learn from them how they are prepared to suffer any extremity rather than that their men shall continue to starve—to starve even to a great extent when the conditions of hon. Members opposite are imposed upon them. As one woman put it to me at a public meeting: "Our men had better starve in sunlight than be starved in the heavy labour of an eight-hours day which you are trying to impose upon them." You will not by the process of bringing coal from abroad break their resistance. You will rather make them feel, by the injustice of it and by the memories that they still have of all you told them in the days of the War, that you are determined to beat them now, and they will use all the power they have to resist you in your evil efforts.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: The last speaker endeavoured to convince the Committee and the country that this was a secret plot to benefit the ex-Kaiser financially, that such plot was really the policy of the Government, that it would not benefit in any way the industries which are at present being starved for want of coal, and that the Government policy was not one which, in fact, would benefit the country. Does the hon. Gentleman really think there is anybody in the country who will believe that? Does the hon. Gentleman really think that the interest of the miners, of those people he endeavours to represent here, will be in any way served by his bringing forward arguments of that nature?
What, in effect, does the opposition of the Socialist party to this proposal really amount to? Let us assume for one moment that the Government is defeated on this issue, and that the views of hon. Members on the benches opposite are carried into effect. What would it actually mean? It would really and actually mean that in another way this would be a further attempt to blackmail
the country into submission to their views. They have tried the method of the general strike. That has failed. I am very glad it did. Now, they are going if they are successful in their efforts, to stop by every means in their power any coal or fuel of any kind whatsoever being at the present time imported into the country. The logical consequence of that action would be that the whole of our industrial life, the whole of our civil and social services, would be paralysed. The Government would have to accept the terms of the miners and of the Socialist party in order to bring about a settlement, and in order to see that the necessary coal was supplied to meet requirements. Whatever sympathies we have, whatever side we take in this particular industrial dispute, no responsible Member of this House, least of all any ex-Minister from whatever party he may come, can really get up and say in this House that it is not the duty of the Government to make every endeavour they can to see that those industries which are not directly interested in this dispute—which, after all, is a purely economic one—shall be starved for lack of fuel. The figures of unemployment are very grave, and are going higher; yet hon. Members opposite come down to this House, and do everything in their power to do that which, in effect, would mean that these unemployed figures would go still higher. I do hope that no notice whatever will be taken of the futile arguments of the character used by the hon. Gentleman who preceded me.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to express my amazement at the manner in which the present Government is being used for Socialistic purposes. In previous Debates they have jibbed at nationalised industry, but we are now discussing what is practically a nationalised coal service. When this Vote is disposed of we will discuss the affairs of a nationalised newspaper. The Government jib at the proposal that the municipalities should be allowed to distribute coal, and yet, I understand, there is a large section of their own party, led by the Home Secretary, who are going to resist the proposition to allow the municipalities to trade in coal as put forward in the Coal Commission's Report.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: What did the hon. and gallant Gentleman say?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I said that a section of the Government party, led by the Home Secretary, are resisting the proposals against the municipalities being allowed to organise their own coal supply.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot go into that matter.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, Sir. All I was going to point out was that I thought it would be better, if instead of the Government coming forward with the present proposal, they suggested that the money should be spent in the way I have described, and I was asking the right hon. Gentleman if he was in favour of the municipalities being allowed to supply coal?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid I should be out of order in answering that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman takes refuge in the fact that he would be out of order, but I should like to put my questions to the Government. There are a great many ships held up in Hull and elsewhere. Some of these ships have 200 or 300 tons of coal in them, or it may be 500 or 600, and there they have been for weeks, and are unable to complete their voyage, or to get on to the high seas because of Government officials' interference. I should like to ask whether they have all been released? Are they—

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There are no ships being held up at the present time.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman is a little touchy himself about being interrupted, but he might have allowed me to finish my sentence. I was putting to the right hon. Gentleman a point which I think is very appropriate at the moment when we have to make ourselves responsible for these proposals. My first question is, will any of this coal be earmarked for the country districts, especially the remoter country districts, which have no electricity or gas? It is all very well for the farmers who have wagons to send for coal. It is all very well for those who live in large mansions and have
their own lighting and heating arrangements, but what about the poorer cottagers? I should like to know whether that matter is under consideration. I should also like to know how much money has been spent already. It is, we know, not all spent; then how much has been spent? I shall not deal with the effect of this on the market. I do not propose to touch that, because I am quite certain that hon. Members will think that it is undesirable to go into details in the matter, but I should like to put this consideration before the Committee: We are told that this coal is necessary to prevent distress and all the rest of it.
Undoubtedly the country is suffering from a shortage of coal. Is any of this coal to be used for private enterprise undertakings? My right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) was going to-night to put that question, and he has asked me now to put it for him as it escaped his memory. Is any of this coal to be used for manufacturing purposes, or is it all to go for social purposes? How is it going to be distributed? What steps are the Government taking to see that there is no profiteering—because I think that is very important? Will the ordinary recognised fixed charges be made, and will the Government act through the machinery of the retail coal trade? If so, will there be the ordinary recognised factor's profit or commission? It is essential to see that no extra money is charged for the coal beyond recognised charges and commissions. I think everyone will agree with that, and that it is quite sound the way I put it. I do not know that any hon. Member in any part of the House will object to that.
Manufacturers' stocks have been commandeered and manufacturing processes have been hampered by the lack of coal. Then there is the seasonal requirements for coal. What about coal for the fishermen? Our trawlers have to go to Holland for coal at great expense, and are making losses in consequence. Yet with all that is going on around us, there are no signs in London that the Government really realise that there is a coal shortage. May I stress the importance of this point to the Home Secretary? Is he satisfied that the utmost rigour is being
observed in the consumption of coal, light, electricity and gas at the present time? May I draw his attention to what is known as the most brilliant social season we have had for several years? I do not want to go into details, but there is another great ball to-night—

Mr. CAMPBELL: And there is also a lot of waste gas!

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will take his car and go round the large hotels and restaurants in this city to-night he will find in the greater part great organised balls, which will go on till three, four, or five o'clock in the morning. He will, too, I think find that every restaurant has a cabaret, which will continue much later. He will find, I do not know how many night clubs, that will go on to all hours—will go on till the morning. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of all that? [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know!"] I know these things because I inquire about them, and I am handing over the information to the right hon. Gentleman. Some of the clubs, I understand, are quite respectable. Still, it does not look like severe restriction in the matter of the coal supplies. We are burning coal, we are burning electricity, we are using all this up. [Interruption.] I put it to the Home Secretary that it is hypocrisy on the part of the Government to talk about this coal being a necessity when we have this waste going on, not only in London but in several of the great cities.

Mr. ROY BIRD: Is it in order for the hon. and gallant Member to talk about balls and night clubs?

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and gallant Member is becoming somewhat discursive.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was tempted away by some interruptions; but the point I am making is, I think, very much in order. It is this, That the Home Secretary has power under the Emergency Regulations to curtail this waste of coal, and when our manufacturers are hampered by lack of coal, when the train services are cut down, when the fishing industry of the country is seriously hampered, it is absurd that this ridiculous and wicked waste should be allowed to go on.
What is the conclusion to be drawn? It is this. This £3,000,000 is the exact sum the Chancellor of the Exchequer reserved in his Budget for tapering off the subsidy in the case of the weaker pits. This is one more attempt to bluff the miners back to work. This is not a genuine need. I refuse to believe it is genuine while the state of affairs I have described is going on, and I refuse to believe that this Government would undertake what is really pure Socialism, this bringing in of coal from outside and selling it, unless there were a political motive behind it, and the political motive is as I have suggested. Under the circumstances, while I do not wish to deprive poor people of coal, I do not think the need is really genuine, and I shall certainly oppose this Vote.

Mr. PALING: I wish to support the Amendment to reduce the Vote. For many weeks questions have been asked in the House to try to gather information as to the price being paid for this imported coal. We have been able to get the amount imported, but never the price which is being paid. I had hoped that when the Minister rose to-day to explain this Vote he would give us information on that point; that if he could not give the exact price to be paid, at least he would be able to give an estimate of what he expected to pay per ton. But he moved the Vote in a very formal manner, and admitted that, so far as he was concerned, he was not going to give any information. I think this House is entitled to some information. Time after time questions have been asked about the extortionate prices being charged for coal in the country and the profiteering that is going on. The Secretary for Mines has promised repeatedly that if a case were brought to his notice he would take action, but he has not done so up to the moment.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I put a question to the Secretary for Mines with regard to profiteering on coal, and he took immediate action.

Mr. PALING: I do not know what action was taken. I believe that in some cases he has written to traders asking them not to do such things, but I do not think there has ever been a prosecution,
or a threat of a prosecution; and in spite of whatever has been done Members who listen to questions in the House will know that the situation is gradually getting worse rather than better. In face of that the House is entitled to information as to the actual price at which the coal was bought and what the people who will be supplied with it will have to pay for it, but no information has been given.
In addition, I would like to know something about the quality of the coal. Throughout the country there have been complaints of the wretched quality of this coal. Only a few days ago I read in the papers about a certain urban district council which had imported about 400 tons of coal, and in a discussion in the council it was admitted that it was of such poor quality that only half of it had been sold. One member of the council actually suggested that in order to sell it they should give so much wood with each hundredweight, so that the people who bought it would be able to burn it. If we are to spend £3,000,000 on imported coal we have a right to know what sort of coal it is going to be, and whether we shall have to pay such a figure as the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Hilton) mentioned in his speech last week—£3 16s. per ton.
The main reason why I oppose this Bill is because I think this action of the Government will aggravate the situation in the country. Other speakers have argued that this was Socialism. I should be sorry to think that if ever a Socialist Government came into power in this country they would apply State trading in this way. One can understand the Conservative party having recourse to State trading or Socialism in circumstances like this. They always use Socialism if it is for an object of this kind—in order to break a stoppage, and to force people to go back to work when they cannot get them to go back in any other circumstances; but I should be sorry to think a Socialist Government would have recourse to buying coal abroad in order to crush down the standard of living of our miners, when we can get more coal than we want from our own pits. I am pretty certain this action will result in aggravating the already bad position in the country.
The miners have been accused of having leaders who were obstinate, and it has been said it is owing to their obstinacy that we find ourselves in this lamentable plight. It is easy for hon. Members opposite to accuse us of obstinacy, and I suppose equally easy for us to accuse them of obstinacy, but that does not find a solution for the difficulty. The most pathetic thing about the business is that the Government, who are supposed to have been impartial, have come down on the side of one of the parties to the quarrel.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: The Council of the Trades Union Congress accused the miners of obstinacy.

Mr. PALING: The Council of the Trades Union Congress will probably say a lot more things about the business which the hon. Member will not be so ready to quote. It suits him to quote one thing, which he has picked out from a good many others, to use against the miners, but I daresay the Trades Union Congress will tell him and his friends a lot more things which they will not be so ready to use before this business is done.
Going back to my point. All through this business the Government have not been impartial. They have shown extreme partiality in nearly every case, and have come down on the side of the mineowners. I do not say they are doing this with that avowed object at the moment, but I say that this expenditure on imported coal will aggravate a position which they did a great deal to create. I am very sorry they are doing it from that point of view and I think my party would have to oppose them from that point of view alone. An hon. Member on the opposite side referred—again, I believe, the Council of the Trades Union Congress were responsible for this statement, or, at any rate, a member of that council was—to miners getting £5 to £13 a week. Everybody on the opposite side knows that that is not true. If hon. Members want to know the truth about miners' wages they can get it not from either the mineowners or the Miners' Federation, but from the Board of Trade "Labour Gazette," or from pamphlets
and leaflets printed by a Government Department, which are about as impartial, I think, as can be.

Mr. DIXEY: What I said was that those figures appear in an article in the hon. Member for Barrow's (Mr. Bromley) own paper.

Mr. PALING: Yes, and what I am saying in addition is that generally speaking they are not true. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If the hon. Member wants to get the truth about the miners' wages he need not go either to the Miners' Federation or to the mineowners for it; he can go to one of his own Government Departments. From them he will find out that the average wage of the highest paid men in the mining industry is much below this minimum which is being quoted, let alone the maximum of £13. It is quite true there may be men here and there in the mining industry getting over £5 or £6 a week, but I do not know where they are. I live in the highest paying coalfield in this country—the South Yorkshire coalfield, and the Doncaster area at that—and I want to tell hon. Members that they would have the utmost difficulty in finding men getting the minimum amount, let alone that maximum amount. If there are places in this country where men have been getting anything like the amount stated it is because they have been working under a system which the Miners' Federation condemns utterly, but which goes on in spite of all attempts of the Federation to smash it. When hon. Members are quoting figures of that kind they should keep these circumstances in mind. Even the figures of weekly wages published by the Government are based upon a full week's work, and there is hardly a coalfield in this country where they are working a full week, or where they have made a full week's work for the last four or five years. The actual wages of the men are much below the wages quoted in the figures given by the Government Department. Again, in regard to the Eight Hours Bill, I think it is deplorable, because in that direction the Government have shown partiality.

HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"

Mr. WESTWOOD: The eight hours day has nothing to do with wages, and the coalowners are determining the wages.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN, (Captain FitzRoy): We are not discussing the Eight Hours Bill.

Mr. PALING: I have only been following the example of previous speakers. All this kind of thing is simply aggravating an already terrible condition of affairs which is being contributed to by the Eight Hours Bill. I was referring to the question of impartiality. I think the Government have shown partiality from the first. They are showing it even in regard to this supplementary estimate, and in regard to the miners who have been out of work for nine weeks, and are fighting tooth and nail to prevent the Eight Hours Bill being put into operation and the adoption of a lower standard of life. We look upon the proposal put forward by the Government as another attempt to drive the miners back to work. I am sorry the Government have deemed it necessary to bring in a supplementary estimate of this description. We have been asking to-day for information. We have requested the Government to say what they are prepared to do and we have not been able to get any information. Even at this late hour it would be better if the Government would apply their brains and their powers to the finding of a solution rather than develop the trouble still further upon the lines of this supplementary estimate.
After all, this problem has to be settled, and if it is true that the mineowners and the Miners' Federation are guilty of obstinacy, surely the first party to step in between the two opposing parties should be the Government of the day, but the Government have not shown any disposition to do so. On the contrary, they have shown a disposition to come down on the side of the mineowners. We have passed an Eight Hours Bill, which is thoroughly reactionary—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is permissive!"] It is permissive to the extent that in future every pit will have to work an eight-hours day. The permission means that the coal-owners say to the miners, "If you do not come in on the eight-hours day, you will not come at all, and you will lose your benefits." The whole record of the Government in regard to this matter has been reactionary in this respect, and even now it would be better for them to devote their energies to finding a satisfactory
solution rather than prolonging the agony and aggravating it by doing such things as are contained in this Supplementary Estimate. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is your solution?"] That is the business of the Government. If hon. Members desire to know my solution, it is to allow the miners to go back at the old rate of wages, and to put into operation the suggested reforms which would probably bring about a state of efficiency in the mining industry which would make it unnecessary to reduce the old rate of wages.
For the Prime Minister to have suggested that the miners should have accepted the principle of a reduction of wages before discussing the Report of the Commission is the wrong way to proceed with this matter. It is an unprecedented thing, to my mind, for anybody to say to one of the contending parties in a dispute, "Here is the Report, but before you accept it we demand that you shall sign an agreement that you will agree to a permanent reduction in wages." [An HON. MEMBER "That was never suggested."] The miners were asked to approve of a temporary reduction in wages before they were allowed to discuss the Report, and that was not in the Report. Mr. Herbert Smith said he was willing to discuss the Report, including everything in it, but the Prime Minister said, "Before you begin to discuss the Report you must agree to a reduction in wages." I think in that matter the Prime Minister showed a disposition to come down on the side of the mineowners. The Government are doing exactly the same thing by introducing this Supplementary Estimate. This Estimate is brought in to enable industries to be carried on, and at the same time in order to enable the stoppage to go on until the miners are beaten by sheer starvation. That is not a statesmanlike effort to solve the problem. If the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary desire to maintain a reputation for statesmanship, then they should find a better method of exercising their abilities than that of asking the House to agree to a proposal of this kind. It is because the Government will not exercise their ingenuity in the direction of finding a solution of this problem that I ask the House to support the reduction which I have moved.

Mr. MARDY-JONES: I want to make a few remarks about the £3,000,000 which we are going to be asked to vote to defray the cost of imported coal from abroad. The remarkable thing to me about this question is that the House of Commons, which prides itself upon protecting the interests of the taxpayers, should be asked to vote £3,000,000 for foreign coal without any data being put before the House. We are not told anything as to the quantity to be purchased, its quality or the price at which it is bought, and we have heard nothing about the cost of the transport of this coal. Neither is there any data as to the source of origin of this coal. It may be coming from any coal-producing countries in the world. Probably most of it is coming from the continent of Europe, but we are not certain. Some of it may be coming from Germany and probably some from Russia. I have no doubt that the Government would not hesitate about bringing in Russian coal if they thought it would help to defeat the British miners. Hon. Members opposite have asked us what is our solution of this difficulty. It seems to be taken for granted that the coal industry is in such a mess that there is only one possible way out of the difficulty, and that is a reduction of wages and an increase of hours. That is the solution of the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is the solution of the coalowners. If that is not so why have the Government carried through this House a Bill providing for an eight-hours day. It is obvious that the Government are backing up the coal-owners for all they are worth in this dispute. They have no grip of the situation at all.
The other Bill introduced by the Government is only an apology for reorganisation, and it does not contain the vital recommendations of the Coal Commission. The Government are not touching royalties, although the Commission recommended that the mining royalties should be nationalised. As a matter of fact they are leaving that question alone because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has informed the Cabinet that he would have to provide a huge sum of money, and the purchase price suggested by the Commission was £100,000,000. That is now put forward as an excuse for not carrying out this recommenda-
tion. The real reason, however, is that the Government know that if they once bought out the mining royalties in Great Britain they would sooner or later be compelled to nationalise the land as well, and that would clear out the landed class who are such a burden on British industry and society. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] The landlord class and the royalty owners are two of the heaviest burdens which the working classes have to bear. During the last 100 years the royalty owners have taken out of the coal industry—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is carrying my ruling a little bit too far.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. JONES: I was simply stating that the royalty owners have received something like £300,000,000 in hard cash from coal alone, and they are receiving now between £6,500,000 and £7,000,000 a year. There is no suggestion that there should be a levy placed on the royalty owners to pay for this imported coal instead of placing it on the taxpayers. When the President of the Board of Trade introduced this Supplementary Estimate he gave little or no explanation as to the need for it, and he deliberately and carefully avoided giving any data which is necessary to have an independent vote upon the question before the Committee. I put a point of Order to the Chairman as to whether it was a proper thing or not for a Minister of the Crown to be in control of a Government Department dealing with the supply of coal at the present time in face of the fact that his family are deriving profit from the coal industry. On Monday last we had a Debate during which we listened to the Minister of Health making a very serious charge against the West Ham Union, and the burden of his speech was that certain members of the West Ham Board of Guardians deliberately used their public position of trust on behalf of the ratepayers to advance the interests of relatives and friends by appointing them to positions under the board. That was the burden of his speech, and one would imagine, listening to him, that he was a great stalwart for public propriety in public government. If he is such a stalwart, if he is so sensitive with regard to the West Ham Board of Guardians, why is he not equally sensitive with regard to his own colleagues in his own Cabinet?

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: May I ask the hon. Member if he is not also interested in the coal trade?

Mr. JONES: Not financially.

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: You get your money, I understand, from the coal trade.

Mr. JONES: If I happened to be a Minister of the Crown, and held vested interests in the coal industry, I would resign my position.

Mr. SANDEMAN: Answer!

Mr. JONES: That is the answer.

Mr. SANDEMAN: Are you interested?

Mr. JONES: Certainly, I am interested, but not financially. The point I am putting before the Committee is that the Minister of the Crown is in such a position in this case. The Minister of Health condemned such practices with regard to local government, but he produced no evidence as to whether the people alleged to be so appointed were fitted for their posts or not, and he did not give any proof that they were appointed because they were relatives or friends of particular guardians. The point I wish to make is this: I understand that the President of the Board of Trade is directly interested in the coal industry in this country. He has explained to-day that he wants this Vote of £3,000,000 to get this foreign coal into the country. If I am incorrect, I shall be very pleased to be corrected, and to withdraw any statement I may make that is not correct, but I understand that the President of the Board of Trade is married to a lady who is the chief owner of one of the largest mines—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I thought the hon. Member was going to make a personal explanation in connection with something that took place earlier in the Debate.

Mr. JONES: It is that explanation which I propose to make, and, in making it, I will state my facts. I submit respectfully that I am within my rights when I point out the fact that these collieries—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that this is a Supplementary Estimate for the purchase
Of coal. I do not think the point he is now raising is one that should be raised now.

Mr. B. SMITH: During the earlier part of the day a promise was definitely made that my hon. Friend would be allowed to make such a statement.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood that the hon. Member was going to make a personal explanation.

Mr. SMITH: That is exactly what he was promised.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must follow my own view as to what constitutes a personal explanation.

Mr. JONES: With great respect, my recollection is very definitely that I was to be permitted to make an explanation as to why I put the point of Order, for the same reason that the President of the Board of Trade was allowed to make a personal explanation in reply to that point of Order, and I fail to see how I can do that unless I am allowed to give these facts to the Committee. These collieries, which are known as the Ackton Hall Collieries, in West Yorkshire, are very large and important collieries, and it may interest the Committee to know that this is the same place to which Lord Oxford, who was then Home Secretary in a Liberal Administration, sent soldiers during the lock-out of 1893 to shoot down miners in Featherstone. It has been a most unhappy choice, from the point of view of public opinion, that the Government should have selected the President of the Board of Trade to insult the miners of Britain by asking for this Vote here to-day. Why did not the Government put up the Secretary for Mines? I suppose because he is a royalty owner himself. Why did they not put up the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade? He is only a shipowner. It might interest the Committee to know—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: All this is going very much too far from the Estimate.

Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. In discussing whether the House of Commons should vote this money or not, would not an hon. Member be in order in suggesting that the House should not vote this money if he is going to show
that members of the Government have so many financial interests in connection with the matter?

Mr. JONES: Further, to that point, the President of the Board of Trade, in the course of his explanation, explained that he had placed all the facts with regard to his financial interests in this concern before the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, and that they had advised him not to resign, although he had very readily offered to do so. It seems to me, from his own statement, that he has now placed the onus of his own resignation on the shoulders of the entire Cabinet, and it is a question for the House to consider whether it is within the bounds of propriety, in connection with the holding of a Government position, for any Member, who has such direct personal interests, to retain that office?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has just said that it appears to him that all responsibility has been placed on the shoulders of the Cabinet. In that case, it is certainly not in order to discuss the matter on this Vote.

Mr. JONES: I merely repeated what the President said. It may or may not be a statement of fact. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If be assures me that it is, then I accept it.

The DEPUTY- CHAIRMAN: If the responsibility has been transplanted from the shoulders of the President of the Board of Trade to the Cabinet, then; if the hon. Member wishes to raise the question of the responsibility of the Cabinet, it must be raised on some other occasion.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: On that point of Order, may I say that it is quite clear that the responsibility for this matter rests entirely on the shoulders of the Cabinet? It is by a Cabinet decision that the Order regarding this Vote has been put down.

Mr. JONES: I am much obliged to the Home Secretary for that very definite and satisfactory statement, which I accept quite readily, but it still leaves open—I am not now referring to the President of the Board of Trade, but to the Government—the question whether it is good or bad policy for the Government of the day, in view of the grave
crisis which has been brought about in our national affairs by this national coal stoppage, that any member of the Cabinet who is in any way concerned with the industry should have any personal connection, either legislative or administrative, with national affairs directly connected with the present coal dispute. I venture to say very respectfully that it is bad policy, because it is not a good thing from the point of view of a satisfactory settlement of this dispute, to allow 1,250,000 miners, or any large number of them, to get a suspicion into their heads that the Government, through certain of its Ministers, is using its position as the Government in charge of national affairs deliberately to load the dice against one of the two parties in this dispute. That is the gravamen of our objection to the whole situation, and I say quite definitely that it would be very good policy for the Government to reconsider their position on that point, if they are really anxious to convince the miners of Great Britain that they are holding a responsible position, as they ought to do, as an impartial body between the mineowners on the one hand and the miners on the other. While this kind of question crops up day after day, they cannot be assured of good will among the miners. That is the purpose of my remarks.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Before I deal with the Vote itself, may I be permitted just to touch upon the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman)? I do not think he was quite correct in saying that it is ridiculous to imagine that £3,000,000 worth of coal is going to break the strike. The right hon. Gentleman is an eminent business man, and, surely, he must know that the £3,000,000 which we are now discussing is not to be used merely for the purchase of a certain quantity of coal, but that it is in be nature of a capital outlay, just as if a ship-owning company set aside £3,000,000 upon which they could get an annual turnover of probably £100,000,000. It is quite conceivable that the Government, in employing this £3,000,000, may have transactions amounting to £50,000,000 or even £100,000,000 if the stoppage lasts long enough. I say, therefore, that we are not dealing to-day merely with £3,000,000. That £3,000,000 may be turned over many
times—probably many times in a week, or, if the Government can bring it about, possibly many times during one day. Consequently, I say it is not correct to make that statement in reply to our argument that the action of the Government in bringing coal from foreign countries is designed to affect the coal stoppage in the way that we have already indicated.
I was a little astonished to hear hon. Members on the other side talking so glibly about the leaders of the miners. They implied that, if the miners changed their leaders, all would be well. The Prime Minister himself, in a speech not very long ago, complained that the trade union movement of this country was not sufficiently English—that there was too much alien blood about it, and that what the trade union movement of Great Britain wanted was a little more English blood transfused into it. As a matter of fact, the two leaders of the Miners' Federation are Englishmen, but, strangely enough, neither of the two leaders of the mineowners is English; one is a Scotch-man, and the other a Welshman, and I do not know which is the worse. I hope that hon. Members will not accept the ridiculous argument that the cause of all our troubles rests with the leaders of the Miners' Federation Nothing of the kind. If I know the miners of this country, and I think I do, I am sure that if they thought for a single moment that their leaders did not represent them they would have no hesitation in dismissing them at once. I venture to say that, if the two miners' leaders named gave up their posts to-morrow, and put up for re-election the following day, they would be re-elected once again. I have no hesitation in adding, too, that the leading representatives of the Miners' Federation in this country represent undoubtedly, not only the mind of the miners, but their spirit, as effectively as any miners' representatives that I have ever known. Consequently, you cannot blame the leaders.
The spectacle that is now presented to the House is to me a remarkable and amazing one. Here is a country, the greatest coal-producing country in Europe, sending out its ships to bring foreign coal here; and the right hon. Gentleman will not, even disclose to the Committee the price of that coal. I am not a business man, but I should have thought that, while it may be improper
to disclose the price that you are about to pay for an article, surely it is not out of place to give information as to the price you have already paid for an article. I think that that is the general custom in business. I have never heard the argument used that you cannot disclose the price you have already paid for a commodity. It is quite reasonable, however, to decline to disclose the price you are about to pay. I repeat, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman has not been fair to the Committee in declining to disclose the price of the coal that we have already received on this account.
I have been very interested to read the explanation given at the, foot of this Vote. I wish that members of the Government who are in business themselves admitted the same principle in their own business as they are now admitting in relation to the purchase of this coal, because they say that—
For so long as the stoppage continues, the coal will be sold at a price estimated to cover the total cost.
That is to say, there is going to be no profit on this transaction. I wish the coal-owners of this country would say the same thing to the miners. I venture to say that a settlement of the mining dispute would soon be obtained if the mineowners of this country agreed to the principle admitted in the words I have quoted. Strangely enough, we have another amazing spectacle. We have a Tory Government bringing forward a proposal to establish a new trailing Department. I will call it the new Tory Socialism. It is an astonishing fact in the history of Toryism that when private enterprise breaks down they jump at once to Socialism in order to help them out of the difficulty. I do not know why they adopt these principles only when they are faced with a crisis!
The question has been raised as to where this coal comes from. I think the right hon. Gentleman would have been fairer to the Committee if he hail given us an indication as to where it all comes from. There is nothing wrong, surely, in disclosing that fact. As he has not given us the details, I will venture to tell him where some of it has come from It has come from United States ports, from Hamburg, Antwerp, Amsterdam, Boulogne, Emden, Ghent, Rotterdam, Danzig and Stettin. I believe we have
received more coal from Germany than from anywhere else—three ports in Germany. What a marvellous change! I remember quite well the language employed by Members on those benches, some years ago. They would never shake hands with murderers—the enemies of civilisation. We waged a great War in order to put down that militarism which right hon. Gentlemen said they detested. Now, lo and behold, we have the Government of the day delighted to shake hands with German coalowners and bringing their coal to this country, too. It is not sufficient to use the argument that coal coming from abroad is not going to be used against the coal miners. Supposing right hon. Gentlemen were coal miners themselves, what would they say if they saw the Government of the day bringing coal into this country? I am sure if the Home Secretary could put himself for a few moments in the position of the coal miner he would come to the conclusion that the Government of the day is bringing foreign coal here in order to help the coalowners in their battle against the coal miners.
I do not intend to say anything about the coal dispute, but I have been running over the arguments which have been used by the present Government in connection with that dispute and this is what we get. The right hon. Gentleman gave no justification whatever for this Vote. At any rate, if he was not willing to tell us the price of the coal he should have disclosed the terms upon which it was being sold in this country. There is a very pertinent point I want to put here. I know for a fact that some of the coal-owners also own ships. Some may also be coal factors. Would it not be an astonishing state of affairs if the Government of the day employed the ships of our own coalowners to bring foreign coal to this country and allowed them to act as coal factors when in fact they are the very people who decline to settle the coal dispute? That would be modern Toryism I presume. It is Tory mentality with a strange twist to go to foreign countries and bring coal here because they cannot settle a dispute in their own land. It will be very interesting too to know from the President of the Board of Trade or the Home Secretary, who is very well versed in these matters, to tell
us whether there is any discrimination against co-operative societies in the distribution of coal. Take the case of the Co-operative Wholesale Society, who are the largest flour millers in the world. Suppose they came to the Board of Trade and asked for coal; would there be a discrimination against them merely because they are a co-operative society? I wish we could get an answer to that question.
Then I should like to ask whether Government coal is evenly distributed between all the districts of the country. I saw the other day the Bolton people were complaining that they were not getting their fair share. I understand there have been severe complaints made there, and that the total coal available in the township is not more than half cwt. per household. That is running it very low indeed. I do not think I should be doing wrong if I asked what are the stocks of coal held now by the muncipalities for gas and electricity production. The right hon. Gentleman, I feel sure, will be able to give us a little more enlightenment on the subject than the President of the Board of Trade. Furthermore, there is something very uncanny about the sum of £3,000,000. Why £3,000,000? The question has already been asked whether this is the same sum that was set aside by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the promised subsidy to carry the mining industry over a period of about three or four weeks. It would be interesting to know what there is sacrosanct about £3,000,000. Why not £5,000,000? The right hon. Gentleman, if I understood him rightly, is willing to spend even £30,000,000 if necessary.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If necessary.

Mr. DAVIES: In fact the other night he told us if necessary he would put the Emergency Regulations permanently on the Statute Book. The President of the Board of Trade has told us that later on we shall get the accounts, showing exactly what has been paid for this coal; but, surely, when we are asked to spend £ 3,000,000 on a Vote of this kind, although we may not be entitled to press for the figure of the cost of the coal for the future, we are entitled to know what are the general terms on which it is being bought, anti whether our coal-owners as ship owners have a hand at
all in the business, which would be ridiculous in the extreme, though I should not be very much surprised to learn that it is so. I am astonished at the attitude of the Government. They have recently had trouble with the coalowners. The Yorkshire coalowners declined to conform to the conditions laid down by Government with regard to the terms set up at their pitheads, and to-day I am told the Government have brought them to book.
It seems to me a strange thing that this country, being a great coal-producing country, should bring coal from abroad. And the arguments used now by the Government are rather strange. Let me refresh the right hon. Gentleman's memory on the arguments which have already been used. Since the beginning of May these are the weapons that have been used by the Government to deal with this dispute. First of all they gave us Special Constables. Then they gave us the "British Gazette" as an additional weapon, and a wonderful thing it was. Then they gave us armoured cars. Then they gave us the eight-hour day, and now they give us foreign coal as their final argument. I hope the Home Secretary will now give us a better argument than any of those. I do not think the Government even now has been able to appreciate the awful tragedy that awaits this country unless this coal stoppage is brought to an end. We will oppose this Vote and we shall tell the people that the ineptitude of the Government is putting a stranglehold upon the whole of the industry of the land, and that the Government is absolutely incompetent to govern the country.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will deal with the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) before I deal with the speech we have just heard. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's idea seems to be that this coal ought not to be bought unless every possible effort is made to reduce the consumption of coal and light and so forth. He gave us some interesting details from his own experience of what goes on at night clubs and cabarets.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It was not my own experience at all. I was
asked how I knew, and I said it was my business to know.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is drawing on his imagination and not his experience—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, and he knows quite well that when evidence is produced it need not necessarily be either imagination or personal experience.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman went so far as to say some people who went to night clubs were people who could not be seen in the light of day. Surely that must be information from personal experience. But we will let that pass. Under the Emergency Regulations every possible effort has been and is being made to reduce unnecessary lighting and expenditure of coal. I am not here to say that, because there is a dispute going on between two sections of the community, the ordinary consumer is compelled to deny himself the use of coal or light. It should be used reasonably in the interests of the country as a whole, but while we are trying to rim these Regulations with fairness, though we are appealing to everyone to reduce their expenditure of coal to a minimum, I am not here to say we decline to allow anyone to use coal except for the most rigorously necessary purposes. After all, the non-combatants in this matter have certain rights. [Interruption.] I am speaking as Home Secretary. I was not concerned with any of the negotiations between the coalowners and the Miners' Federation. It is my painful duty to administer the Regulations, and it is my duty particularly to look after the interests of the general community. The hon. and gallant Gentleman gave us a rather lurid description of the way in which light and power is used in these great hotels where there are cabaret shows and dancing goes on. It is a remarkable thing, and I think it is a warning to the whole coal industry, that one of the big hotels in London, having attached to it one of the biggest restaurants, does not use one pound of coal per month. The whole of that hotel is run on oil. Heating, cooking, hot water and everything is done by oil. No coal whatever is used. That is one of the
biggest hotels in London. Surely it is a very grave warning to the coal mining industry, both owners and miners, when non-combatants, as I have called them, are beginning to consider whether or not it is desirable to change over from coal, which is so troublesome—I am not apportioning any blame—to oil.

Mr. MONTAGUE: They will do it if it pays them, whatever happens.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There are a good many institutions in this country which are changing their boilers from coal to oil. There are certain railway companies that have changed and are changing their locomotives from coal to oil. As the whole world knows, during the last few years a very large number of ships have been changed over from coal burning to oil burning. I am mentioning this as a warning.

Mr. TINKER: You can get oil from coal.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: But you can get oil without having the trouble to get it from coal. I am mentioning this rather as a serious warning to the warring factors in the coal industry, that the more they war and the longer the stoppage continues—hon. Members opposite will appreciate the fact that I have not called it anything but a stoppage— the more will efforts be made by what I have called the non-combatant parts of the community to do without coal and to change over to some other means of lighting and heating. The proposal to utilise £3,000,000 in order to purchase coal is a matter for which the Cabinet is entirely responsible.

Mr. HARNEY: Is the sum of £3,000,000 to be used simply for purchase, or simply as a fund with which to trade?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will allow me to proceed with my argument. I will deal with his point later. I am not taking any credit for the fact, but I think it was the Home Secretary who was first worried by the views which I have expressed in regard to the general community and their difficulty in obtaining coal. The matter was brought before the Cabinet, and they came to
their decision. It had nothing to do with my right hon. Friend and colleague, the President of the Board of Trade. It was entirely and purely a Cabinet decision, which was taken after great care and great consideration, and it was merely handed over to the Board of Trade to make the necessary arrangements, because they were the Department which dealt with the matter in 1921 when coal was imported, and they were the natural body, in touch with the trading community of this country and of the world to take charge. The Cabinet as a whole is entirely responsible for the decision.
In reply to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney), I would point out that this scheme is what is called a revolving credit. It. is not merely that we are going to purchase £3,000,000 worth of coal and then cease. If this stoppage in the coal industry continues, we shall go on buying and importing coal and selling it, and using the £3,000,000 over and over again so long as the coal stoppage lasts. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) asked me why we have fixed on a sum of £3,000,000, and why we did not ask for £5,000,000. The answer is quite plain. We fixed on £3,000,000 because we thought that would be an amount of money that. would enable us to buy as much coal as could conveniently be brought into this country by ships, and could conveniently be landed in this country, in addition to the considerable amount of coal which has been purchased and is being brought in by individual consumers. I want to emphasise that point very clearly.
The large consumer can fend for himself. We as a Government, do not take upon ourselves the responsibility of buying coal for, say, the railway companies. The railway companies are enormous consumers of coal, and they ought to have been and I have no doubt they have been forewarned as to the necessity for purchasing coal and keeping up their supplies of coal. They have bought coal and they will buy what is necessary to keep up their train services as well as they possibly can. We certainly are not going to buy coal for them. Nor are we going to buy coal for the large electrical undertakings or for the large gas undertakings. They can buy quite as well as the Govern-
ment can buy coal. They can buy it as cheaply as we can buy it, and they can import it into this country as well as we can. The hon. Member for West-houghton mentioned the case of Bolton, and said that the municipality were troubled because they had not enough coal for their electric lighting arrangements. I do not exactly see where the Government could draw the line, but knowing something of Lancashire, and the conditions of life in a great town like Bolton, I think that Bolton is one of the places that could be put on the side of the line where the railway companies and the big gas consumers are, and that they should be responsible for importing such coal as the Corporation of Bolton need.
There are very large numbers of consumers for whom the Government are responsible and for whom they accept responsibility. There are the smaller municipalities, who cannot go into the foreign market to buy coal, and there are the smaller commercial undertakings, particularly, let us say, connected with the supply of manufactures and the supply of food. Then there is the domestic consumer. One hon. Member pleaded for the supply of coal to the country villages. I entirely agree. The country villager has no interest whatever in this dispute, and yet he is being crippled and almost killed for lack of coal, because of this stoppage. The country cottager is part of the obligations of the Government of the day. Then there is the small householder who wants coal—fortunately there has not been much need for coal for heating—for cooking his food.
I say to hon. Members opposite who are interested in the coal miners' case, "Do not spoil your case by saying that you will cripple and starve out the small householder and the small cottager. You may have your views in regard to the action of the coalowners, or in regard to the action of the Government, but do not spoil your case in the country by putting yourselves against the import of coal for the use of poor people in the country." The provision of coal for these purposes is an obligation which rests upon the Government. If we did not carry out the obligation, this House would be the first to blame us. Let us assume for the moment that this stoppage continues. It has been in progress now for nine weeks. Let us assume that, with
the men very firm on the one hand, and the owners very firm on the other hand, this deplorable stoppage continues for another nine weeks. Let us assume that the Government made no provision for getting coal. What would happen? Questions would be put in this House. "Is the Home Secretary or is the Minister of Mines aware that in such and such part of the country there is no coal at all?" "Is the Home Secretary aware that the cottagers cannot cook their dinners because they have no coal?" What answer could I make? The House would complain, and rightly complain, of the Government—[An HON. MEMBER: "Let them burn oil!"] —if they took no steps whatever to deal with the situation.
I am asked as to the mode in which this coal is being bought, the prices, the terms, and so forth. It is a very difficult question to answer. I say, frankly, that I am not going to give the hon. Member for Westhoughton—who put the question very courteously and very fairly—the information for which he asks. I have seen some of the contracts that have been made. He gave us a list of the places from which coal is being imported into this country. He did not say, and I do not think he could say, from what places Government-purchased coal is being imported. We will assume his statements to be correct, and that coal is being imported from all the places mentioned. If I am going into the market as a large buyer of coal a buyer of coal to a greater extent than anybody else could afford to buy—it is essential that the seller of the coal, be he in Germany, America, Belgium, or elsewhere, or be he in Hamburg, Bremen, or any other port., should not know that I am going to buy. The very essence of buying as cheaply as we possibly can is to buy without its being known that it is the Government of Great Britain that is buying. I do not suppose that hon. Members opposite would think that I have sent down an agent to any of the countries mentioned, and that he has gone there and has said, "Here am I, the agent for the Government of Great Britain, and I want to buy 250,000 tons of good coal." If he did that, the price would go up instantly.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but would he tell us what he does with the
coal when he gets it? Does he stop the prices from rising against the British consumer?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: First of all, we buy it, then we have to ship it, and then we shall sell it. First of all, in regard to buying the coal it is absolutely essential that nobody should know that it is the Government of Great Britain that is buying. We are buying from certain sources, and I am glad to tell the House that up to the present our purchases have been made on admirable terms. In due course, the accounts will be presented to the House. [An HON MEMBER: "Where are you buying?"] I shall not tell the hon. Member where we are buying. We are buying coal in different places. If it gets out that in one particular place we are buying coal and there is an attempt to put up the prices against us, we shall go as far away from that town as possible. We are advised by the best coal factors in London and the country. Moreover, the Department of Mines, which is admirably staffed with the greatest experts in the coal trade, are helping us in this difficult task.
I have been asked a question as to the ships that will bring over the coal. We are purchasing our tonnage in the open market. We certainly have not gone, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Westhoughton, to the coalowners of Great Britain and said, "Will you let us have ships for the purpose of bringing coal over to this country?" Nothing of the kind. Exactly in the same way that we are buying our coal as privately and secretly as possible, so we are buying tonnage as privately and secretly as possible in the open market. If the hon. Member for Westhoughton has any information, if he has the slightest suspicion of information that can show me that we are buying our tonnage from a coalowner too dearly, or at a price or even a fraction of a price more dearly than we could get it from somebody else, I ask him, as one who has worked with me in political life, although on opposite sides, to give me that information, as a Briton.

Mr. R. DAVIES: The question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman was this. Is this Government coal
coming through the machinery of any of the coalowning companies of this country, who own ships and who in some cases are also coal factors?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member is entitled to put his question, but it is rather difficult for me to reply. We have not gone to any of the coal-owning companies but to some of the best factors in the coal trade, who did the same thing in 1921, and we have checked and controlled them in every possible way. When these transactions are put fully before the House, the hon. Member himself will say that we have bought not only our coal but our tonnage as well on the best possible terms. Now, with regard to the disposal of the coal. We have not very much coal coming in as yet—

Mr. BATEY: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Mines said there was none.

Sir W. JOYNSON - HICKS: I think there is a little.

Mr. BATEY: Ask him how he squares that?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was saying that very little, if any, coal which has been bought has actually arrived. I will not say that any has yet arrived, but as soon as it does then the responsibility for distribution comes on the Government. The first thing is to dispose of it so as to prevent it getting into the hands of the big people. That is a definite undertaking which I give on the part of the Government. We will not sell to railway companies, to big electricity undertakings, gasworks, or large corporations. It is their duty to get their own coal. It is our duty to help the small people, and our coal will he put on the market at the cheapest possible price, not to make a profit on selling or a loss, but it will be sold at the lowest possible price after paying for the cost of the coal, the cost of tonnage, and distribution. We shall sell it in the smallest lots to the smallest people, and do our utmost to prevent profiteering, of any kind.

Mr. JOHNSTON: If I can give the right hon. Gentleman a city in this country where the poor consumers are paying at the rate of £3 10s. per ton for coal which is brought into this country at 30s. a ton, will he put in some of the Government coal in order to break the price?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I shall have to consider ally question of this kind. I am not prepared at the moment to say that the Government will start a coal distributing centre in any particular city, but if the hon. Member can give the name of a town where there is gross profiteering in coal, where the small people are unable to get coal at a reasonable price, I will do my best to see that some of the coal we are importing is spared for that town at the cheapest possible price after covering the cost of the coal, tonnage and distribution. I have tried to explain to the Committee with perfect frankness the reasons for this Vote. There may be differences of opinion. It may be said that the Government have undertaken what is a Socialistic experiment, but that criticism comes with ill grace from hon. Members opposite; at least they should applaud and vote for it.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Why not do it always.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not want to leave the hon. Member too happy in regard to the future. It may be that this is State Socialism, which in ordinary lanes I should dislike as frankly as any anti-municipal trader, but there are certain times when theories have to be put on one side. The Government has to think of the interests of the greatest number. I was very tempted to follow some of the remarks made this afternoon, and I see the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley) in his place. I should like to have said something in regard to the report which has been criticised so much, but I will not indulge in any criticism of the miners' leaders That is not necessary this afternoon. I am speaking on behalf of the nation, on behalf of tine non-combatants, on behalf of those men and women who must have coal in order to keep their homes going, and I say to this Committee that if the Government did not take the step they are taking to-day, they would fail in their duty as a Government to the majority of the nation who are not directly concerned in this unfortunate dispute in the coal trade. I ask the Committee to agree to the Vote and say that we have done right in taking this step, a step which we shall continue to take as long as the stoppage goes on in order to provide coal for the people.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sure the Committee is indebted to the Home Secretary for not delivering a speech, but has treated the House to a characteristic address which we have all enjoyed. If the right hon. Gentleman had had more time to think he might not have been so frank, but I am sure the Committee has benefited because of the fact that he has given us his thoughts without any attempt to gloss them over. Some of his remarks have been rather a revelation. He began by warning the coal industry of what their possible fate would be if they continued to indulge in the stoppage. I wonder what state of mentality it is which thinks the miners at the moment are indulging in any particular form of pleasure, which considers that it is a delightful thing for them to abandon their ordinary occupation, which is the only means of supplying the necessaries of.life for themselves and their families, in order that they may indulge themselves during the summer months. The miners are not indulging themselves at the moment; they are submitting to one of the greatest tortures which it is possible for a body of men to endure on behalf of what they regard as right. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that this coal is going to be given to the non-combatants. May we take that as a Government assurance that none of this coal will go for any purpose in which a coalowner is interested?

W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I said we had to protect the non-combatants. If a coalowner is in need of coal, if a miner is in need of coal, T am not going to say that neither of them shall he assisted.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is not so simple-minded as to believe that the use a miner will make of the coal, and the use to which a coalowner will put it are similar. The coalowner will use the coal in order to carry on his ships, his steel works, his profit-making industries, and use them as instruments for the suppression of the miners. I am asking for an assurance from the Government that they will not allow any of this coal to be used to enable the coalowners of this country, through any of their industries.
to make profits that will enable them to prolong this struggle with the object of smashing the miners.

Mr. GOODMAN ROBERTS: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) tell us whether he wants the employés in all other industries out of work?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I thought I had made my statement quite clear. The large consumers of coal we are unable to help, that is the big iron and steel works, the big railway companies, electricity works. If he will look at the words in the statement, he will find that this coal is for
use in the maintenance of supplies to public utility, food-producing, and other essential undertakings and to domestic consumers.

Mr. WHEATLEY: It is of some interest to have the assurance that it is not to be used for capitalistic purposes. The right hon. Gentleman told us that it is to be used in the interests of the country, and he drew a picture of the innocent person who lives out in a rural village, the country cottager who requires coal for the cooking of his dinner, and said that a generous Government intends to see that he does not suffer and is going to supply him with coal. He enlarged on the fact that it was the duty of the Government to come to the assistance of the poorest of the community in their hour of need. I was interested to know how they were going to pay for this coal. We have had no estimate as to what the price is to be, but I am informed that it will not be less than £3 a ton, and I am interested to learn how an agricultural labourer, out of his 25s. or 26s. a week will be able to pay £3 a ton for Tory coal when he cannot pay £2 a ton in order to give a decent standard of living to the miners. The Government has assumed responsibility for the country cottager. If it is the duty of the Government, an impartial Government, to see that the country cottager does not suffer when the miner puts up the price of his labour or refuses to let it down, then it is surely equally the duty of the Government to see that the country cottager does not suffer when the price of his dinner is put up by another section of the community. If the person who supplies his dinner puts up the price, will the Government feel it
to be its duty to import food under Government auspices and prevent profiteering in the necessities of the country cottager? The Government is embarking on a policy which will sound strange to many people in the country, and which I am satisfied they have no intention of carrying out.
7.0 P.M.
At any rate, we have got to this point in this country, that we no longer joke about bringing coal to Newcastle. That has been one of our national jokes for I do not know how long. It is fortunate for the right hon. Gentleman that in the day when he decides to embark on his little experiment of a temporary character, like the other Measures of the Government in Socialism, the policy of protection so much beloved by the Tory party is not in operation. You do not hear anything to-day about the rain of this country being effected by the importation of foreign goods. It is only when the importation of goods is likely to affect the profits of the owning classes of this country that we are asked to support protection. When we can import anything which is likely to be useful in the suppression of the working-classes of this country, them away with your protection. Even such a staunch supporter of it as the President of the Board of Trade is prepared to suspend it for the duration of the war in order that the free trade principles which in ordinary times threaten this country with ruin may he used to suppress miners who are putting up a noble stand against ruination to a considerable section of our community.
The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Supplementary Estimate which we are now discussing, treated the House to a burst of indignation at the very suggestion that because his family have financial interests in the coal trade they should be suspected, in the slightest degree, of even a corrupt thought in connection with the struggle on which we are now engaged. It is only West Ham Guardians who can he suspected of anything like that The very idea of suspecting people on the other side, no matter how deeply they may be immersed personally in the business which we are discussing, the very idea that they should be suspected of thinking corruptly or acting corruptly raises indignation in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear,
hear!"] May I assure the party opposite that they are not the only Gentlemen of England. I will undertake to find as many gentlemen among 400 inhabitants of West Ham as I find on the Tory Benches.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I afraid that is not a question which can be discussed on this Vote.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I will depart from that, and will not pursue any further my search for English gentlemen in the Tory party.

Major PRICE: Is it in order that a right hon. Member of the Opposition should insinuate a charge of corrupt practice in the case of a Minister of the Crown?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that matter has already been disposed of, and perhaps we may now resume the discussion of the Vote.

Mr. WHEATLEY: It is interesting to see bow sensitive hon. Members may be when it is even suggested that black sheep may be found among their class.

Major PRICE: The sensitiveness I displayed was in regard to whether a charge of corruption was made or not.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We have already disposed of that, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not bring it up again.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I had no intention of pursuing the point any further. Let me take another point which has been raised to-night. Speaker after speaker on this side appealed to the party opposite to inform them in greater detail as to what was to be done with this coal or this money. That was a perfectly natural appeal to make to them in view of recent happenings in this country. When we had £300,000 sent from Russia we were told by the Home Secretary, very dramatically and with his usual eloquence, that this was foreign money being used to prolong a British strike? Are we not entitled to ask why British money should be used to prolong a British strike? Are we not entitled to ask why the Germans should be used against British workmen? It as my right hon. Friend the late Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Rhys Davies) stated, a revelation how
far we have travelled in the short period of eight years. Here is the united front Here is the brotherhood of capitalists. There is no longer any attempt to cement the classes of Great Britain. There is no attempt at all to bring about that unity among the British race that would so cement us that we would be able to stand four-square to the winds of the world, as the Prime Minister appealed to us to do.
There is nothing of that kind. When our class interests are involved, then we seek our friends. The party opposite find their friends, not in the valleys of Wales, not on the coalfields of Scotland or of Yorkshire—their saviours are Germans. The Huns of 1914 are to be used to smash the men who responded to the call in 1914. Do not let us forget, when we are told that this country cannot afford to subsidise the mining industry, that we are subsidising here the people who are responsible for £7,000,000,000 of our national debt, the people who have crippled us—if they were responsible for the War, as we are told by our teachers on the other side; if they were responsible for the War, and if we were the injured innocents of the world in 1914 that we profess to be. The Germans are compelling us at the moment to pay approximately £300,000,000 a year, not to the people who won the War, hut to the people who lent us out of their profiteering proceeds from the War the money that enabled us to carry on. Well, we are up against it again. Our friends on the other side are being backed by the German capitalists. We are going to back the British workers. We are on the side of the British, and we do not grudge the German capitalists their Tory friends in the British House of Commons. Is it right for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Government have not taken sides? Look at the Honours List. Whom do you find there? Not A. J. Cook or Herbert Smith. You find there the names of men who have made hundreds of thousands of pounds out of the mining industry and invested it in Tory papers to keep their representatives in power. They are being held up to Society as the most honoured individuals in the British community.
During the course of the Debate, speaker after speaker on the other side confronted us with the statement
alleged to have come from the Trade Union Congress. I want to tell the House that the Trade Union Congress issued no such statement. They have issued no statement, and if any statement has been issued in their name it is entirely unauthorised, and the contents of it are obviously untrue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] If there are hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side who are prepared to ask us to believe that miners in this country, receiving from £5 to £13 a week, are typical of their class, then I sympathise with them in their understanding of the mining industry.

Mr. DIXEY: Your own people said it.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that that was not in the report of the Trades Union Congress?

Mr. WHEATLEY: Yes, I certainly do, because the Trade Union Congress has never issued any report. Therefore, it could not be in a report of the Trade Union Congress. My friends behind have twitted the Government on having taken sides. Why should they expect anything else? If people on my side of the House think that they can carry on the struggle, in which the people of this country are engaged at the moment, by fraternising with the enemy, then their simplicity will be exploited by the more cunning class on the other side. I appeal, therefore, through you, Captain FitzRoy, to my hon. Friends not to express any surprise at the other side taking sides in the struggle. As it develops, through the critical stage into which it has now entered, they will take more and more a part in it and more and more a bitter part in it. Our people have to be prepared not merely for the contempt that will be poured upon them through the eloquent speeches of the other class, but they have to be prepared for the starvation that will be imposed on their wives and on their children in order to maintain for a little longer the superiority—economically—of that class who to-day live by exploiting their labour.

Mr. BARR: We have had a most remarkable position revealed. We have a Government which, while it does not stand for full-blown Protection, is at
least sympathetic to the Protectionist system. Yet we have had from the President of the Board of Trade the most absolute Free Trade arguments that I have heard for a long time. He was proud that he was seeking to purchase this coal wherever he could get it in the cheapest market possible. He was in fact adopting the old Free Trade adage, "Buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest markets." Not only so, but the Home Secretary said that if anyone could show him where there was a fraction of a price too dear he would seek to rectify it. We have a Government which prides itself on its patriotism, a Government which advises us to buy only British goods, coming forward with this Estimate for bringing in coal from abroad. We have a Government that opposes State trading coming forward with a vast scheme for the purchase of foreign coal. The scheme was commended to us by the Home Secretary on the ground that in times of national crisis it was necessary to resort to exceptional methods. I remember the adage of a great philosopher, that you should so act that you can universalise the law of your maxim. The right hon. Gentleman said that in doing this he had to consult the greatest good of the greatest number. If the Government are in favour of that principle why do they not always apply it in normal times? It is the principle for which we stand—the greatest happiness and the greatest good of the greatest number.
I look upon this scheme in conjunction with the various measures that have been taken in this crisis. Because I believe that it is part of a large scheme to defeat the miners and to depress their standard of living their hours and their wages, I oppose it. I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago say that there could be no great harm in bringing in the Eight Hours Bill because 18 years ago he had stood in the same place, and with the greatest satisfaction and support bad proposed an eight-hours day. I wonder that he did not go further back, to 1819, when there was a Measure brought in here for a 12-hours day, or to 1846, when there was a 10-hours day. Why go back only 18 years? Because I believe that this is a reactionary proposal I shall oppose this Estimate. The Home Secretary spoke of non-combatants. It is becoming a commonplace that in all
future wars there will be no noncombatants. I believe that in the present crisis there are really no non-combatants, that men are hound to range themselves and are ranging themselves on the one side or the other. The right hon. Gentleman went on to speak about the poor country villages. He said to us, "Why spoil your own case? You will turn them into enemies. They will resent your action when they are putting their little bit of coal on the fire, or when they have no coal at all and are suffering. They will resent the action of the miners and their agitation." We are not afraid of the country villages. They know full well that the miners case is their own case. Though suffering a little, if their hearts are in the right place, they will say, "This little suffering we have here is nothing to the suffering of the miners in the coalfields."
I come from a country which, in its mining population, has had a long uphill struggle. In 1606 they were thirled to the pits teal to a bondage which one historian says was as cruel as that of the 14th century and as savage as that which obtains in the wilds of Africa. After about two centuries, in 1799, there came a great landmark in their struggle, for in that year an Act was passed that all the colliers in Britain who were held bound were from that moment to be free of their servitude. But that was only the beginning of a long struggle. Time and again their efforts were beaten back; time and again there came in Governments and the decisions of Law Courts and they were beaten back. I might give the classic illustration of Sisyphus. Laboriously they rolled the stone to the top of the bill and then someone came and made it bound down again to the bottom. Last Friday the Chancellor of the Exchequer congratulated himself that he was not sending the stone right down to the bottom, but only down to where it was 18 years ago, to that ledge of the rock, the eight-hours day. Some of us with vision can see the mineowners coming with their crowbar on a convenient occasion to send it down further still.
The miners are not standing alone by any means. These efforts have been made in the past, but it has been as true of the miners in their struggle as it has
been of the Christian Church, that the more they were persecuted the more they grew. We often say, in speaking of the struggles and persecutions of the Church, that "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church." I say firmly and strongly that I believe that the seed which the miners are sowing in sorrow to-day will result in a golden political harvest, and that before very long. Therefore, I say to the Government, "Go on with your Measure, and your importation of coal, and your shadowy and shallow reorganisation of the industry. You are compassing your own undoing." I have read something recently about difficulties in another quarter of the House over a shadow Cabinet. The shadow Cabinet sits on the Treasury Bench opposite. They are passing hence; they are here but for a brief day. This conspicuous action of theirs in bringing in foreign coal is one that will have the utmost effect upon the people of the country. They are themselves unloosing forces that are gathering against them and like an avalanche will hurl them from power. Then, and not till then, the common people will once more, with the miners in the van, resume their former upward march towards a higher lot and a brighter destiny.

Mr. SEXTON: My mind goes back to the cry, "Let us not forget," at the time of the sinking of the "Lusitania," and all the outrages committed by the Germans in that year. Think of the absurdity of the situation that now, in the best country in the world for the production of coal, we are going to our former enemies If, order to supply our own wants. The excuse is the usual excuse of the capitalistic system, that the pits cannot be worked economically. I am curious to know what is the meaning of that word to the men who use it. To me the position is something like this: We house the miners in hovels which disgrace the picturesque scenery in which they are placed. We pay them sufficient wages to keep them alive and barely alive, while they produce the coal. When they produce more coal than is demanded under the artificial law of supply and demand—there are two laws of supply and demand, the artificial and the natural—they must be locked out without any money to buy coal or boots or clothes or food. That is the economic position of the mines. In order that the profits shall still go on the mineowners
say to the miners, "In the present conditions you are getting too much, and you must get less." I cannot conceive the mind of a man who will argue like that. We are always told, when there is a glut, that there is no demand to meet the supply, and that, therefore, wages must come down. We pay work-people to keep them alive so that they may fill the warehouses. Then there is no demand for the goods on the one hand, and on the other hand the people want food and clothes and boots for themselves and their children. I shall vote against this Estimate. I wish that I could do more than vote against it. If I had my own personal way with this importation of coal, there would not be an ounce handled in this country. Unfortunately, again, the so-called economic circumstances prevent me and my colleagues from carrying out that principle. I wish to God we could do it! My only word, in conclusion, is that if it could be done I would have no hesitation in taking a hand in it myself.

Mr. BATEY: I oppose this Vote as strongly as I can: I regard it as another effort on the part of the Government to defeat the miners, and I wonder when we are going to come to an end of these efforts on the part of the Government. Last week they rushed through the House a Bill to increase the hours of the miners. They kept us here unitl half-past four o'clock yesterday morning passing Emergency Regulations in connection with the mining dispute, and, to-day, they are making this further effort to oppress and, if possible, to defeat the miners. The Home Secretary made two statements with which I wish to deal. He gave us the impression—at least I understood from what he said—that the Government had bought coal and that some of the coal had already come into this country. Today, at Question Time, one of my colleagues asked the Secretary for Mines how much coal had been imported, and the answer was 1,012,000 tons. I asked a supplementary question as to whether that coal had been brought into the country by private companies, or whether any part of it had been brought in by the Government, and the answer of the Secretary of Mines very clearly was that none of that coal had been brought in by the Government.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): I do not want the hon. Gentleman to be misled by anything I said. This is a very good instance of how dangerous it is to give an answer off-hand and without asking for notice. I said I thought the figure given included no Government coal, but, as a matter of fact, I have ascertained since that about 4,000 tons of such coal was included in the figure mentioned.

Mr. BATEY: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not say so this afternoon, as I wanted to know what was paid for that coal and who got it, and his answer led me off that line of inquiry.

Colonel LANE FOX: I should not have told the hon. Gentleman that in any case.

Mr. BATEY: I come to the other statement of the Home Secretary with which I wish to deal. He warned Members on this side against doing anything which would prevent people living in the country from getting coal. An hon. Member below the Gangway, on the other side, intervened with the question, "Did we want to put out of work other men now working in factories?" We mean to do no such thing. We do not want to stop the country people from getting coal and we do not want to put anybody out of work who is now in work. We believe that if the Government did what they could do, neither the people in the country would suffer, nor would any person be put out of work. Regulation 14 of the Emergency Regulations gives the Government power to take possession of the collieries and work them to provide coal for the country people and for the factories. The President of the Board of Trade is in charge of this Vote. Regulation No. 14 gives that power to the President of the Board of Trade and we say that he ought to use that power and take possession of the coal mines of this country and work them instead of importing coal.
The hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) made a statement regarding miners earning £5 to £13 a week. I said at the time that if he meant to infer that miners were earning that sum, it was a lie. I repeat now what I said then, and if the hon. Member were in his place I would ask him whether, in the mining
Division which he represents, he really believes there are miners who when the lock-out took place were earning £5 to £13 a week. I have looked up the returns issued by the Mines Department for the quarter ending March of this year and for the quarter ending last December. I find that the average wage in the quarter ending March of this year was 10s. 4.79d. per day arid for the quarter ending December last year, it was 10s. 5.14d. I looked up the month of April, the last month worked by the collieries in Durham, and I find that the average wage for the County of Durham in that month was 9s. 11.28d. Take the highest of these figures which is 10s. 5.14d. and multiply it by five, which represents a fair average working week, and you find it yields a weekly wage about which hon. Members on the other side ought not to complain, and certainly one out of which they ought not to attempt to make any political capital.
When this Vote was published, I was interested in the figure of £3,000,000. I ask the Secretary for Mines why is it £3,000,000? It will be remembered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided in his Budget for a sum of £3,000,000. We were told first that it was intended as a sort of additional subvention to help the coal industry when the larger subvention had come to an end. Then the Prime Minister said it would be used to help in removing miners from one district to another. Then the Prime Minister changed his mind and said it would be used as a subsidy during the period of negotiations. The Prime Minister one again changed his mind, and said that £3,000,000 would be paid as a subsidy, provided the Miners' Federation accepted certain terms before 31st May. It seems to me that the £3,000,000, which was first going to be used as a subvention and then to help to move miners from one place to another, is now to be used for the importation of coal.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Then, why ask for a Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. BATEY: In order to use it as they are going to use it. The Secretary for Mines cannot have forgotten the experience of 1921. In 1922 the Government had to come to the House of Commons for a Supplementary Estimate in con-
nection with that stoppage of £6,734,000. The Estimate was actually £7,275,000, but the sum spent on imported coal was £6,734,000. In that case the Government made a bad bargain because the then Secretary for Mines said they had imported 1,850,000 tons, which meant that they paid £3 12s. 9d. per ton for the coal imported in 1921, and they lost on the transaction no less than £238,000. In this Estimate the Government seemed to anticipate that they would lose even more on the present transaction because the explanatory note states that this sum is intended
to cover any loss which may be incurred on the liquidation of stocks not resold when the stoppage in the industry conies to an end.
Clearly, the Government are making provision for the loss, it may be, of the whole of this £3,000,000 in the importation of coal. I also remind the Secretary for Mines that when you begin the importation of coal during a stoppage, it does not necessarily cease when the stoppage comes to an end. If when the stoppage came to an end, the importation of coal would cease, perhaps there would not be much complaint to make, but in 1921 the stoppage came to an end on 4th July and yet in October of that year no less than 600,000 tons of coal was imported into this country and in December there was still an importation of coal into this country. I suggest that this is a very dangerous game. I thought that the recollection of the experience of 1921 would prevent the Government from going into it again, but so anxious are they to defeat the miners that they are rushing into it just as they did in 1921.
We ought to be told where the need for this coal arises. No one has yet given us any information on that point. We are told that about 1,000,000 tons have been imported. Is there not sufficient coal coming in now? Where is the need for any additional importation, and who is asking for it? Unless the Government can state clearly where the need is, they ought to hesitate before going forward with this Vote. The President of the Board of Trade said it was the duty of the Government to purchase this coal. It is not the duty of the Government to take any such step. In doing so they are doing the strongest thing they can do to injure the miners. Their duty is to assist in bringing the
struggle to an end, but actions like this do not help a solution of the problem but merely aggravate the situation I urge on the Government to stop these continual efforts to defeat the miners and to bend their minds to the problem of getting the collieries restarted, and enabling the miners to come out of this trouble and resume work under conditions no worse at least than those which previously obtained. We regard this coal that is going to be imported as coal used for the purpose of blacklegging the miners of this country. We regard it as purely blackleg coal, and we believe that no railwayman ought to carry this coal, and that no transport worker ought to

touch it. We believe that any transport worker in this country who touches this coal is touching blackleg coal and is blacklegging the miners, and we believe that any railwayman in this country who carries this coal is carrying blackleg coal and is blacklegging the miners anti, injuring the miners.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

Colonel LANE FOX: rose in his place, and claimed to more, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be Dow put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 125.

Division No. 333.]
AYES.
[7.47 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davison, Sir W. H, (Kensington, S.)
Hume, Sir. G. H.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hume Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Albery, Irving James
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Dixey, A. C.
Hurd, Percy A.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Drewe, C.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Eden, Captain Anthony
lliffe, Sir Edward M.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Ellis. R. G.
Jacob, A. E.


Atkinson, C.
Elveden, Viscount
Jephcott, A. R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Balniel, Lord
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Everard, W. Lindsay
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Berry, Sir George
Fermoy, Lord
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Bethel, A.
Fielden, E. B.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Betterton, Henry B.
Finhurgh, S.
Lamb, J. O.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Forrest, W.
Lister, Cunliffe- Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Boothby, R. J. G.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Loder, J. de V.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Frece, Sir Walter de
Lord, Walter Greaves-


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Braithwaite, A. N.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Lumley, L. R.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Briggs, J. Harold
Gates, Percy
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Goff Sir Park
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Cower, Sir Robert
Macintyre. Ian


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Grace, John
McLean, Major A.


Bullock, Captain M.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Burman,.J. B.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Margesson, Captain D.


Campbell, E. T.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Cassels, J. D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Meller, R. J.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Harland, A.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hartington, Marquess of
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Chapman, Sir S.
Haslam, Henry C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hawke, John Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Murchison, C. K.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hills, Major John wailer
Nelson, Sir Frank


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Neville, R J.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrst'ld.)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Holland, Sir Arthur
Nuttall, Ellis


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Oakley, T.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd,Hemel Hempst'd)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Davidson, Major General Sir J. H.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Philipson, Mabel
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W


Pielou, D. P.
Skelton, A. N.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Pilcher, G.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Power, Sir John Cecil
Smithers, Waldron
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey, and Otley)


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Preston, William
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Watts, Dr. T.


Price, Major C. W. M.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Wells, S. R.


Radford, E. A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Raine, W.
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.
Wiggins, William Martin


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Remer, J. R.
Styles, Captain H. Walter
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray [...]rase
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Rice, Sir Frederick
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Roberts, E H. G. (Flint)
Sykes, Major Gen, Sir Frederick H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Templeton, W. P.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Salmon, Major I.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wolmer, Viscount


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Womersley, W. J.


Samuel. Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Tinne, J. A.
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Sandeman, A. Stewart
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Waddington, R.



Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wallace, Captain D. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Shepperson, E. W.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hell)
Major Cope and Captain Bowyer.


NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Runchciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardle, George D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ammon, Charles George
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hayes, John Henry
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sitch, Charles H.


Briant, Frank
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smillie, Robert


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, west)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Jones. T. I. Mandy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Compton, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com, Hon. Joseph M.
Sullivan, J.


Cove, W. G.
Kenyon, Barnet
Sutton, J. E.


Crawford, H. E.
Kirkwood, D.
Taylor, R. A.


Dalton, Hugh
Lansbury, George
Thorne. G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davits, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawrence, Susan
Thurtle, E.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Colonel Harry
Lee, F.
Townend, A. E.


Dennison, R.
Lindley, F. W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wallhead, Richard C.


Fenby, T. D.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
March, S.
Watson, M. (Dunfermline)


Gardner, J. P.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Watts Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Welsh, J. C.


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood, J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)
Palin, John Henry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Paling, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greenall, T.
Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Waiter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.



Grundy, T. W.
Purcell. A. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Richardson. P. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben
Henderson.

Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,999,900 be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 243.

Division No. 334.]
AYES.
[7.57 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bilston)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Broad, F. A.


Ammon, Charles George
Barr, J.
Bromley, J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Batey, Joseph
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smillie, Robert


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Dalton, Hugh
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Snell, Harry


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kenyon, Barnet
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Kirkwood, D.
Stamford, T. W.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Dennison, R.
Lawrence, Susan
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Duncan, C.
Lawson, John James
Sullivan, J.


Dunnico, H.
Lee, F.
Sutton, J. E.


Gardner, J. P.
Lindley, F. W.
Taylor, R. A.


Gibbins, Joseph
Lunn, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton), E.)


Gillett, George M.
Mac Laren, Andrew
Thurtle, E.


Gosling, Harry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
March, S.
Townend, A. E.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Greenall, T.
Montague, Frederick
Viant, S. P.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)
Murrain H.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Oliver, George Harold
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Groves, T.
Palin, John Henry
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col D. (Rhondda)


Guest. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Welsh, J. C


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Westwood, J.


Hardle, George D.
Potts, John S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon Vernon
Purcell, A. A.
Wilkinson. Ellen C.


Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow)


Hayes, John Henry
Riley, Ben
Windsor, Walter


Henderson. Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hirst, G. H.
Scrymgeour, E.



Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sexton, James
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Henderson.


John, William (Rhondda. West)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis



NOES


Aciand-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Gates, Percy


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Albery, Irving James
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Goff, Sir Park


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cooper, A. Duff
Gower, Sir Robert


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cope, Major William
Grace, John


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Crack, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Crawford, H. E.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)


Atkinson, C.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Gulnness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Conliffe, Sir Herbert
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bainiel, Lord
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hail, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Davidson, Major General Sir John H.
Harland, A.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hartington, Marquess of


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Davies, Maj. Goo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Haslam, Henry C.


Berry, Sir George
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hawke, John Anthony


Bethel, A.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Betterton, Henry B.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hills, Major John Waller


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hoare. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Dixey, A. C.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Drewe, C.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Eden, Captain Anthony
Holland, Sir Arthur


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warwik, Nun.)


Braithwaite, A. N.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Ellis, R. G.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Brings, J. Harold
Elveden, Viscount
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Westoms.-M)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Brooke, Brigadler-General C. R. I.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Fairfax. Captain J. G.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Bullock, Captain M.
False, Sir Bertram G.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Burman, J. B.
Fermoy, Lord
Hurd, Percy A.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fielden, E. B.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Finburgh, S.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M


Caine, Gordon Hall
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.


Campbell, E. T.
Forrest, W.
Jackson. Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Cassels, J. O.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Jacob, A. E.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Jephcott, A. R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N (Ladywood)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Chapman, Sir S.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Ganzoni, Sir John
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)




Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Oakley, T.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement
Pato, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Lamb, J. Q.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Templeton, W. P.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Pleiou, D. P.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Plicher, G.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Loder, J. de V.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Tinne, J. A.


Looker, Herbert William
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Titchtield, Major the Marquess of


Lord, Walter Greaves-
Preston, William
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lougher, L.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Waddington, R.


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Radford. E. A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Lumley, L. R.
Raine, W.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kinoston-on-Hull)


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Remer, J, R.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Rice, Sir Frederick
Watson, Sir F. (Pudssy and Otley)


Macintyre, I.
Roberts. E. H. G. (Flint)
Watson, Fit. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


McLean, Major A.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Watts, Dr. T.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wells, S. R.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Salmon, Major I.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wiggins, William Martin


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Marqesson, Captain D.
Sandman, A. Stewart
Williams, Corn. C. (Devon. Torquay)


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Meller, R. J.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renf. ew W)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, westb'Y)
Winterton, Rt. Hon, Earl


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sheffield. Sir Berkeley
Wise, Sir Fredric


Monsen, Eyres, Corn. Rt. Hon. B. M
Shepperson, E. W.
Weimer, Viscount


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wornersley, W. J.


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalynige & Hyde)


Murchison, C. K.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Smithers, Waldron
Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Nelson, Sir Frank
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Yorburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Neville, R. J.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stanley, Col, Hon. G.F.(Will'sden,E.)



Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Nuttall, Ellis'
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Lord Stanley and Captain Bowyer.

Original Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 116.

Division No. 335]
AYES.
[8.7 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Feiden, E. B.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Finburgh, S.


Albory, Irvine James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Forestler Walker, Sir L


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Chapman, Sir S.
Forrest, W.


Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Apsley, Lord
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir G. K.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Colfox, Major Win. Phillips
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.


Atkinson, C
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cooper, a Duff
Ganzoni, Sir John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Couper, J. B.
Gates, Percy


Bainial, Lord
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Barclay-Harvey. C. M.
Crawford, H. E.
Goff, Sir Park


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gower, Sir Rchert


Been, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Graco, John


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Cuntifte, Sir Herbert
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Berry, Sir George
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bethel, A.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol. N)


Betterton, Henry B.
Davidson,.J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton. W.)
Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovll)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Harland, A.


Braithwaite, A. N.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Haslam, Henry C.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hawke, John Anthony


Briggs, J. Harold
Dixey, A. C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Drewe. C.
Hills, Major John Waller


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Elliot, Major Waiter E.
Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St.Maryiebone)


Broun Lindsay. Major H.
Ellis, R. G.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy


Bull, Rt. Horn Sir William James
Elveden, Viscount
Holland, Sir Arthur


Bullock, Captain M.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Burman, J. B.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Caine, Gordon Hall
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald


Campbell, E. T.
Folio, Sir Bertram G.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Cassels, J. D.
Fermoy, Lord
Hume, Sir G. H.


Hume Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hunter-Weston, Lt. Gen. Sir Aylmer
Murchison, C. K.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hurd, Percy A.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Neville, R. J.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


llife, Sir Edward M.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Nuttall, Ellis
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Jacob, A. E.
Oakley, T.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Jephcott, A. R.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Templeton, W. P.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Perkins. Colonel E. K.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Tinne, J. A.


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Plelou, D. P.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Pilcher, G.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Power, Sir John Cecil
Waddington, R.


Lamb, J. Q.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Ward. Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-o on Hull)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Preston, William
Warner, Brigadler General W. W.


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Price, Major C. W. M.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Loder, J. de V.
Radford, E. A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Looker, Herbert William
Raine, W.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Lord, Walter Greaves-
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Laugher, L.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Watts, Dr. T.


Luce, Mai.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Remer, J. R.
Wells, S. R.


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Rice. Sir Frederick
Wiggins, William Martin


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


McDonnell, Colonel Hein. Angus
Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter
William, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Macintyre, I.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


McLean, Major A.
Salmon, Major I.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Macmillan, Captain H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wise, Sir Fredric


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wolmer, Viscount


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Womersley, W. J.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Margesson, Captain D.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Shaw, Capt, W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
 Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Meller, R. J.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Yerhurgh, Major Robert D. T.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Shepperson, E. W.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sinclair, Major Sir A.(Calthness)



Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Skelton, A. N.
TELLER, FOR THE AYES.—


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Major Cope and Captain Bowyer.


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Smithers, Waldron



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Purcell, A. A.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Richardson. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ammon, Charles George
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Riley, Ben


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Ritson, J.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hayes, John Henry
Rose, Frank H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barr, J
Hirst, G. H.
Sceymgeour, E.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sexton, James


Bromley, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sikh, Charles H.


Cruse, W. S-
Junes, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Clynes, Rt Hon. John R
Kelly, W. T.
Smillie, Robert


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cove, W. G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Dalton, Hugh
Kenyon, Barnet
Snell, Harry


Davies. Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kirkwood, D.
Snowden. Rt. Hon. Philip


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. W.


Davison. J. E. (Smethwick)
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Day, Colonel Harry
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Dennison, R.
Lee, F.
Sullivan, J.


Duncan, C.
Lindley. F. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Donnie, H.
Lunn, William
Taylor, R A.


Gardner, J. P.
MacLaren, Andrew
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Gibbins, Joseph
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thurtle, E.


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Gosling, Harry
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Townend, A. E.


Graham, O. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Montague, Frederick
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Greenall, T.
Murnin, H.
Viant, S. P.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Wallhead, Richard C.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Patin, John Henry
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Groves, T.
Paling, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Grundy, T. W
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D, (Rhondda)


Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Pethick Lawrence, F. W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Potts. John S.
Welsh, J. C




Westwood, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.


Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Henderson.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £433,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for certain Expenses incurred in setting up and maintaining Organisations for supplying the Necessities of Life and in connection with the maintenance of order during an Emergency and for Grants in respect of Emergency Police Expenditure.

The CHAIRMAN: The Home Secretary.

Captain BENN: On a point of Order. I should like to ask you, Mr. Hope, under whose authority the notice appears in the Estimate that the Vote will be accounted for by the Home Office, because under Sub-head E—"British Gazette"—we have been told that the official responsibility for that expenditure is borne by the Exchequer. I should like to submit to you that, if there is a Minister who is said officially to be responsible for the expenditure of public money, he ought to be present to explain how the money has been spent.

The CHAIRMAN: The intimation is that the Votes are presented on the authority of the Secretary of State and of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Either Minister can answer for the Vote. I am not responsible for the form in which the Vote is drawn up, and on putting the Question I called upon the representative of the Government who was present.

Captain BENN: But, Mr. Hope, might I point out to you the obvious abuse that might come in by a practice such as this, if some official, unnamed it might be, puts down a Vote to be accounted for by such and such a Minister who might be the Minister who has spent the public money, and then asks some other Minister to come to the House and to apologise for him! I submit that it is an old-established practice of the House that I am urging, that the Minister responsible for the expenditure of the money should come to Committee of Supply, and be ready to answer for it.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) in
the point he is putting? In this case the responsibility is peculiar. The Stationery Office are finally declared to be responsible for this extraordinary publication, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself was occupied in an executive capacity as editor. Under these circumstances would you be prepared to accept a Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I, on that point of Order, submit to you, Mr. Hope, that the Vote is in the name of the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is responsible for the greater part of it, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for only the £16,000, relating to the "British Gazette."

Captain BENN: Further on the point of order, might I suggest that if you, Sir, would give authority to the statement made by the Home Secretary that the Minister responsible should be here to answer, I should be perfectly satisfied?

The CHAIRMAN: This form of the Vote may be proper or improper; it may be desirable or undesirable, but no point of Order arises. The Estimate is submitted by the Government and presented at the Table. It may be—I do not say for certain—that on the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer something may arise. Anyhow, there is nothing to prevent its going on with the Vote.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Might I suggest that in the circumstances this item of £l6,000 should be separated entirely from the rest of the Vote, and taken on its own basis?

The CHAIRMAN: If some hon. Member moves to reduce, or entirely to delete some particular item, the discussion will be confined to that.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: Do I understand, Mr. Hope, if that be done, you are going to confine discussion to the one Item? Surely that is not in the minds of those who are raising these points at all?

The CHAIRMAN: Then they had better not do it. I am not confining the
discussion, but the Rules of the House confine it. Anyhow, there cannot be any point of Order that would prevent the Vote from being taken.

Captain BENN: Might I respectfully press this point. You yourself are Chairman of Ways and Means, and occupy a position of official responsibility in connection with the presentation of the Estimates. I suggest that if it is possible for the one responsible for the expenditure of public money to evade the criticism of the House of Commons by handing over the task to some other Minister by means of these words in the Estimate, which so far as I know have no sanction—"that the Vote will be accounted for"—it is quite clear that the practice might spread, and the purpose of the Committee of Supply, which is that, Ministers should be before the Committee and be cross-examined and criticised may be utterly defeated. Therefore, I would submit again that, if there is no point of order, still the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be present and answer for this item for which he is officially responsible. Otherwise we must ask you to accept a Motion to report. Progress.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept that view. No question of order can arise that would justify me in ruling that the Vote should not he taken. I am Chairman of Ways and Means, but I am in no way responsible for the preparation of the Estimates, or their form.

Mr. HENDERSON: On a point of Order. Might I ask you whether in the Vote that you read out a few moments ago the £16,000 is included?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes—Item E of the Vote.

Mr. HENDERSON: Pardon me, I am referring to what you read when you opened the proceedings. I do not think you are answering my question. Perhaps you would assist the Committee by reading again the question that you read from the Chair at the beginning of these present proceedings.

The CHAIRMAN: The Vote is divided into sub-heads and comprises many items which are not in the Motion I read from
the Chair, but which are explained in detail in the actual Estimate presented.

Captain BENN: I am sorry to be persistent, but might I ask you, supposing the Committee considers that by the introduction of these. words "will be accounted for by"—referring to Items A, B, C, and so on—deprive us of the opportunity of cross-examining the Minister who is really responsible, will you kindly tell hon. Members what redress they have?

The CHAIRMAN: It is hardly my business to do that, but I know the resource and ingenuity of the hon. and gallant Gentleman so well that I have no doubt he will find an opportunity. There are members of the Government who might he called to account when their salaries come up. It might be in order then, though I cannot promise that it would be, to move a reduction.

Mr. J. JONES: Though I am not quite so expert as the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), may I ask, seeing that the Government have for the first time become protagonists in a great industrial dispute by the publication of a newspaper which Was not renowned for its veracity, whether we cannot have an opportunity of getting the proper people here to discuss its contents—the people who were good enough to lie so liberally as they did?

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept the premises of the hon. Gentleman any more than I can accept his conclusions.

Mr. JONES: Sometimes you accept my exclusion, Sir.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I see these Estimates deal mostly with matters, apart from the "British Gazette," which concern the Home Office in England. They also deal with proceedings in Scotland and with the Home Office in Scotland, and I want to ask whether we are not to have the presence of tie representative of the Government who is responsible for the Home Office in Scotland and for the organisation which was set up in Scotland? Questions will arise which affect the Scottish Office very vitally.

The CHAIRMAN: It may or may not be desirable that the Secretary for Scotland should be present, but I have no
possible means of compelling the attendance of any particular Minister.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Seeing that the Scottish Office is not represented—

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): rose—

Mr. BUCHANAN: Oh, yes, I see the Lord Advocate. No one respects the Lord Advocate more than I do, as he personally knows, but he is not the Home Office representative in Scotland. We should not accept the Attorney-General as representative of the Home Office in England. All that I am asking is that the representative of the Home Office in Scotland should be present; and with all due respect to the Lord Advocate he has not yet reached that position.

The CHAIRMAN: It is no part of my function to say whether he ought or ought not to be present. As a matter of Order, the Vote can be taken without his presence, and I have no power to compel his attendance.

Captain BENN: May I direct attention to two Statutes, the 5th of Richard II and the 6th of Henry VIII, under which Members are required by law to attend Parliament? May I further direct your attention to the fact that under the Statute of Henry VIII you, acting as Speaker, and holding the powers of Mr. Speaker, may direct that the salary of any Member not present in Parliament may be stopped? May I ask what action you propose to take?

The CHAIRMAN: I am not fully conversant with the Statutes quoted, but I am aware that it was the practice in the past for the House occasionally to order a call; but I believe that practice fell into desuetude because the members of the Bar found it so much more profitable to be in the Temple than in the House that they protested successfully against its application. It has fallen into desuetude, and it certainly cannot be revived without notice and in Committee of Supply.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sorry to stand between the Committee and the other Ministers whom they wish to hear. The reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here at the moment is that he anticipated I should speak for
a pretty long time, as I was responsible for the expenditure of about £420,000 of this Vote. It is quite true the Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible for £16,000 for the "British Gazette," and he will be here in ample time to meet the criticisms of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) or any other Member who desires to deal with it. The Committee may congratulate themselves that the sum I am asking for is much less than at one time seemed likely. I remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when pressed in the House during the general strike, mentioned the sum of £750,000 as being the likely amount of the expenditure. We now find that that is reduced to £433,000. The reason why the Home Secretary is responsible for this Vote is that there had to be some Member of the Government who undertook to be responsible for what are called the supply and transport arrangements and their organisation by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson), when he was Home Secretary, was, I believe, Chairman of the Cabinet Committee which dealt with those matters. Quite obviously it is essential, in the case of a very serious emergency such as occurred at the beginning of May, to have some Member of the Government primarily responsible for the management of affairs in dealing with that emergency, and I propose—there is no reason why I should not—to tell the Committee how this Government organisation was run.
It is the right of the Committee to know how that organisation, which received a certain amount of approval, was conducted. In the first place, the Cabinet elected a Committee of its Members to arrange all the details of the maintenance of supplies and the organisation of the country during the period of emergency. I have reason to believe that all Governments have worked under a somewhat similar organisation. The Committee of the Cabinet consisted, as might be imagined, of those Cabinet Ministers who would be likely to be concerned in any such emergency as the general strike, and included the President of the Board of Trade, the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the maintenance of law and order, the representatives of the Army, the Navy and the Air Services, the Minister of
Labour, the Minister of Transport, though not a member of the Cabinet, and, of course, the Secretary for Scotland. They were directed by the Cabinet to be a Cabinet Committee to prepare the necessary oraganisation, and the Home Secretary was, as is usual, appointed Chairman of that Committee.

Mr. WALLHEAD: At what date was this?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is set up at the beginning of each new Government. It is set up as a matter of ordinary routine. That Committee met from time to time during the course of the last 15 months—not with anything like great regularity, but from time to time. When the emergency arose, the Committee met every morning at the Home Office, with the Home Secretary in the Chair, and there received all the reports of what was going on, and took such steps as seemed then desirable to meet the emergency. I am not going to ask hon. Members opposite as a whole to agree with me that they took what were the best steps in all circumstances, nor to agree with me that we should have taken the steps we did, with the result that ultimately took place, that the strike was called off. But from the point of view of the general public—and the right hon. Gentleman who was Prime Minister in the last Government quite definitely agreed—in an emergency, it is the first duty of the Government to provide for the maintenance of the life of the people of the country. That was our object, and, I may say, our sole object—to keep all the organisations supplying transport, food, and coal running as far as we could on the ordinary lines
.
The arrangement was that all the expenditure, for parts of which each of the different Departments was responsible, should be got together in one Vote, put down, as it is to-day, and moved by the Minister who was primarily responsible as Chairman of that Cabinet Committee for the organisation of the scheme and the expenditure of the money.

Captain BENN: Does this Estimate include any expenditure at all in connection with the exercise of any powers under he Emergency Powers Act?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Oh, yes. The Committee to which I am referring,
and the whole organisation, really came into being as an effective organization in consequence of the powers under the Emergency Regulations issued under the Act. I think it will be an advantage to the Committee that there should be one Minister responsible for the expenditure of the whole of this money. The plans of the Government were that we should not interfere with the ordinary carrying on of people's business. All we said was, "We want you to carry on. We want trade run, we want omnibuses and trams to run, we want the butcher and the baker to go on carrying on their business in their shops providing the necessaries of life." Of course, where there appeared to he any difficulty in carrying out those arrangements, then it was the duty of the Government to take such steps as would enable these people to carry out their ordinary duties, and if this was not possible, it was our duty to carry them out ourselves as an alternative.

Mr. POTTS: Will the Home Secretary give us some idea as to how all this money was expended?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will give full details later on but I must first of all tell the Committee something about the organisation that has spent the money. First of all the Postmaster-General was appointed Chief Civil Commissioner. The country was divided into 11 divisions, in each of which there was a Civil Commissioner, and those Commissioners were junior members of the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where are they?"] I am answering for them, and I am prepared to take any censure that is necessary. In addition to these 11 gentlemen, each of whom represented the Government, and who, if communications had been completely cut, would have represented the Government officially and actually in his own immediate district, each of them had a staff of officers connected with him who were conversant with the particular matters of business such as finance, food, coal, railway transport, liaison officer, and so forth. There was, in fact. a skeleton organisation formed by the Government before the strike under which the country was split into 99 areas where they had some organisation. I do not want to weary hon. Members by going into too much detail, but if any points
are omitted, and hon. Members will ask questions, I shall only be too glad to answer them.

Mr. J. DAVISON: rose—

The CHAIRMAN: The Home Secretary has not given way, and he says that he will be prepared to answer questions put by hon. Members, but he means at the close of his speech, and not during his speech. The hon. Member cannot ask questions in the middle of a speech, and the right hon. Gentleman has not given way.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sorry the hon. Member did not hear what I said. I stated that I did not wish to weary the Committee, but if hon. Members would make their comments and ask me questions after I had finished, I should only be too glad to answer them afterwards. Having set up that organisation, the first thing the Government had to do was to see that every possible step should be taken to prevent interference with the measures the Government took to secure that volunteers should be entitled and able to carry out their duty. That was primarily the responsibility of the Home Secretary, who is responsible for law and order, and, accordingly, I made arrangements at the earliest moment for the transport of police from one part of the country to the other, where they might be most wanted. I take this opportunity of saying that, having been given those powers, I did transfer a certain number of police from one part of the country to another.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if he had power to transfer the police against the wishes of the local authorities concerned?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In the first place, I had power to transfer only when I was asked to do so, but I have now power to transfer, and therefore there was no question of transferring police against the wishes of the local authorities or the chief constables, and I may say that there was the utmost harmony prevailing in regard to these arrangements. Part of this money is required for the transport of the police and for the further force which we decided to raise. During the strike the special constabulary were increased from 98,000—which was the
number for all over the country before the strike—to 226,200 by the time the strike was ended, and I am sure hon. Member on all sides will be glad to know that, with the assent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am proposing to increase in London the uniformed special constabulary from 8,000 to 15,000 as a permanent force.

Captain BENN: Why?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Because we think it is desirable, and because we found the special constabulary of very great use during May last. Therefore we think it is desirable, rather than increase the ordinary police force, that the special constabulary should be allowed to join for three years.

Captain BENN: Is the cost of that included in this Estimate?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, but the cost included here is for the special constabulary during the period of the general strike.

Miss WILKINSON: Is any test for fitness applied in the case of the special constabulary?

Sir W. JOYNSON HICKS: Yes, the test of fitness is a stringent one, but during the general strike—

Mr. BROMLEY: There was no general strike.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am dealing with the cost of all these organisations, and I will call it an "emergency" if the hon. Member prefers it.

Mr. BROMLEY: A national strike.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, I will call it a national strike if the hon. Member wishes it. As the hon. Lady will know, during a period of great emergency if was not possible to pay the same attention to the qualifications of special constables as is possible now, and it is for that reason that I want to get a regular, organised, carefully selected—

Mr. PALING: Are political opinions taken into consideration?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Not in the slightest degree. As the hon. Member knows, special constables can be enrolled under whatever Government is in power, and I am sure that if at some remote
future time a Labour Government should require to ask for these powers, they would not for a moment think of asking, shall I say, trade union or any other such qualifications for special constables who might desire to enlist.
Before I turn to the question of cost, perhaps the Committee would like to know one or two more details as to the volunteers who rolled up, and helped the Government in this national emergency. There was in each of the 99 areas a volunteer service committee working with the Government organisation. I need hardly say that there is no item for the expenses of the chairmen of these committees; they worked entirely without salary. There were altogether—and I think it is a magnificent reply on the part of the country to the national strike—488,155 volunteers, and we were able to supply 62,629 to different employers and others who wanted to make use of their services.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: How many of those went to the mines?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think any of them went to the mines, because the Government did not undertake the running of the mines or anything of that kind; but the Government provided volunteers for anyone who was unable to get on without them and desired to continue his work. There were many organisations in that position, such as the railways, the trams—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What about the O.M.S.?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the hon. Member will know, there is no item in these accounts for any expenses of the O.M.S. They were not a Government organisation; they paid their own expenses, and Parliament is not being asked to pay a penny towards them. Therefore, it would be quite out of order either to say what they did or to criticise their action.

Mr. J. BROWN: Seeing the trouble regarding the mines, it would not have been wonderful if a number of these volunteers had gone to the mines.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the mineowners had asked for volunteers, I am quite sure that large numbers of
men would have volunteered. [Interruption.] There was no work that these volunteers were not willing to do to help the country in its time of need. [Interruption.] I have tried to describe the organisation, and now I must say something as to the money it cost. One of the most expensive departments was the food department, which spent £119,000. The expenses of that department were made up as follows—I am giving the Committee more details than appear in the White Paper.
The lorries at Hyde Park were hired, and cost £132,000. The labour pool lorries cost £2,000. Administration cost £6,000. The Office of Works' expenses in the parks were £6,000. The total, therefore, was £146,000. From that we recovered from the milk pool—the arrangements in connection with which will be familiar to hon. Members—a sum of £73,000, which reduced the total cost to £73,000. Then there was a small sum of £6,000 for the cost of excess yeast which was prepared because of the strike, and I should like particularly to refer to this, because it is an interesting point. It is a rather curious fact that very few people seemed to know or to realise at the time that one of the most essential features in the maintenance of the life of the country was the provision of a supply of yeast; and, thanks to the foresight of the supply and transport organisation of the Government, all that was arranged, so that when the trouble came ample supplies of yeast were forthcoming, in order that the baking of bread should not be stopped throughout the country.

Miss WILKINSON: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that that fact in itself points to the necessity of having a really sensible housewife on any future committees of this kind?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: We did know—and that is what I am trying to point out—without any housewife. Fortunately, many of us are married, and we happened to know that yeast was essential. We made provision accordingly, and there was a total expenditure in that respect of £6,000. Then the salaries, wages and travelling expenses of the inspectors of the Board of Trade were £3,000; the salaries and expenses of regional area food officers £19,000; the salaries, wages and expenses of area food
Officers—who were continued during the continuance of the coal stoppage—were £9,000; the Office of Works in Hyde Park, £24,000; and there is a contingency item of £5,000.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are those extra staffs?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Oh, yes. The ordinary staffs of the Board of Trade, the Home Office and the Ministry of Health received no extra salary at all.

Mr. PALING: And the Civil Commissioners?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No; the Civil Commissioners received no salaries.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Who were these people?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: They were extra clerks, inspectors who had to go all over the country arranging details, and so on. Of course, the staff of the Home Office was nothing like large enough, and the staff of the Ministry of Health cannot control the whole food organisation in 99 areas throughout the country, though they can control it from their own centre. It would be quite impossible for the staff of, say, the Board of Trade to split up, and cover the whole detailed organisation throughout the country. These salaries and expenses were those of the men who were taken on for this particular organisation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I thought they were all volunteers.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No; there were, as I have said, 400,000 volunteers, but there was a certain number taken on, even before the strike began, in order to be prepared for the emergency organisation, and the Government allocated them to different areas in order to take charge of the work there.

Miss WILKINSON: How long had they been on the staff?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A month or two beforehand. As the hon. Lady knows, and as she said just now, any housewife of intelligence knew there was probably going to be a strike, or national emergency. We were wise enough to do what the housewife would have done, and prepare for it.

Miss WILKINSON: The right hon. Gentleman would have been so disappointed if the emergency had not arisen!

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There was a very serious trouble—

Mr. J. DAVISON: What I want to ask is what necessity existed—

The CHAIRMAN: I have already said that, if the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Member cannot press his question now.

Sir W. JOYNSON - HICKS: I am hoping to draw my remarks to a conclusion soon, and then the hon. Member can ask me any question he likes. I do not know that I need weary the Committee with any further details. Perhaps they will like to know something of the work conducted by the transport organisation in Hyde Park. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is here, and he, like my other colleagues, will, of course, answer any detailed criticisms that may be directed against the Vote which I am putting before the Committee. In fact, I am in the rather pleasant position of making a general statement. When the trouble and the criticism comes, my colleagues will have the opportunity of replying and I shall sit and listen to them.

Mr. MARCH: May I ask whether any profit was made on any other articles of food besides milk?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Milk was the only article of food the Government really undertook to distribute, and milk is, of course, a very vital necessity.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You had a good supply of water.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, the milk was exceedingly good during that period. The supplies of milk in London were even better than before.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Do you not know that that is a very seditious statement to make—that during the general strike people were better supplied with milk than they were before? It means that we should go on and do likewise. If I were Home Secretary, I should arrest you.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member knows that statements made in
the House are privileged, and he could not arrest me.
Now I come to the transport organisation, to which a great deal of the success of the Government work was due. I cannot speak too highly of the efforts that were made by the officials of the Ministry of Transport to prepare this great organisation which carried out so very successfully the maintenance of the food supplies of London during that time of emergency. Lorries were collected in Hyde Park. They were told off to do work, partly the collection of milk, partly the collection of food at the docks, and partly the distribution of food. Hyde Park was one great hive of industry—all working together in order to protect the whole community against the results of the strike. Whatever views one may have—and I am not forcing my views on that point—regarding the general strike, everyone will agree it was absolutely essential that some such organisation as this should have been put into operation, in order to maintain the life of the community of this great City of London, and the same kind of organisation was carried on throughout the whole country.

Dr. SALTER: Were the lorries commandeered, or paid for at ordinary commercial rates?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: We had power to commandeer them, but only in one instance was it found necessary to do so. They were paid for at ordinary commercial rates. That disposes of transport. My right hon. Friend will be able to answer any further questions The other subject that came under his control is the supply of electricity. The Committee will like to know that the most careful arrangements were made for the maintenance of the supply of electricity, which is of vital importance to a great city such as London. Whenever an electricity organisation reported to us that their men were out, and unless steps were taken the supply of electricity in any particular part of London would be jeopardised, we were able to supply from among our volunteers a sufficiency of men to carry on.

Mr. SEXTON: Was that always done in consultation with the local authorities?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Some electricity organisations in London are municipal and some are commercial. If either one or the other communicated with us by telegram or telephone, and said their men were going out and Chelsea, Clapham or some other part of London would be without electricity, we supplied them with the necessary volunteers. Ultimately, before the emergency was over, we supplied volunteers to no fewer than 33 power stations in London, and it is enormously to the credit of the Minister of Transport and the Electricity Commissioners, who were under him, that the supply was maintained.

9.00 P.M.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: Were not naval ratings used?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Naval ratings were brought up to London for that purpose, but we also had this register of volunteers, and I am glad to say we did not need to use the whole of the naval ratings or the whole of the volunteers.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Did the naval ratings get an opportunity of volunteering?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think you will find any complaint from a single naval rating with regard to his use in connection with the strike. They all came quite voluntarily.
Finally, some portion of the Vote is for the work the Secretary for Mines did in regard to coal. His work, in the first instance, was dealing with the export of coal and bunkering ships; secondly, regulating inland distribution, and enforcing restrictions as to consumption. His first duty was to issue Regulations to prevent the export of coal either in bunkers or ships, and to keep as much as possible in this country. That we did. Then we had to regulate the internal transport and the distribution of coal. so as to provide the fairest possible distribution, and get it on the railways or such other organisations as could undertake it. On the whole I think the Committee will also agree with me there that the work of the Secretary for Mines and his officials was exceedingly well done.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Was it as well done as he does his work here?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am really rather surprised at that question. My
right hon. Friend does his work here to the entire satisfaction of the Prime Minister and the Government and the House of Commons. I will say one word about the Civil Constabulary Reserve.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: We are agreeably surprised to hear that you were responsible for all this. We thought it was the Postmaster-General.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Postmaster-General was the Executive head. He controlled all the organisation. But the Postmaster-General is not a Member of the Cabinet. Of course, the Cabinet itself is responsible for these matters, and in the capacity of a member of the Cabinet I was responsible to the Cabinet for the administration. I need hardly say the Postmaster-General and I worked in the utmost harmony. I should like to take this opportunity of saying to the House of Commons how much the nation owes to these volunteers in the Government and out of the Government—my colleagues, including the Postmaster-General—who undertook this very difficult work, and those thousands of volunteers up and down the country who placed their services at the disposal of the country in a time of great emergency.
There was one further organisation, called the Civil Constabulary Reserve. We did not know for how long or how short a time the emergency would exist, and we thought it might be desirable to have a further force. Every effort that I made and that my colleagues made was in order to prevent the military being called in, or firearms being used. As the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Bromley) has said, this was a national strike. Britons were on one side and Britons were on the other, and it was highly desirable—I take full responsibility for saying this—that, if possible, the great trouble should be got through without a single death taking place. I am very glad to tell the Committee that not one single shot was fired throughout the whole of this emergency. I thought it desirable, and the Cabinet thought it desirable, that there should be, in addition to the ordinary special constables, another force called the Civil Constabulary Reserve. The special constables were not able to give up the whole of their time, but I thought there might be a body of men who might be prepared to give up the whole of their time. Accord-
ingly, a—it is difficult to describe it—semi-military force was created, called the Civil Constabulary Reserve.

HON. MEMBERS: Black and Tans!

Mr. BROMLEY: It was a body similar to the Irish Auxiliaries.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Opportunity was accordingly given to any Territorial soldiers or their friends who desired to do so, to join this new force. We did not call up the Territorials; we did not want to call them out as such. But an opportunity was given to any of those who wanted to serve, for pay, full time, to do so. Of course, no one knew how long the emergency would last. In London 11,162 men joined this Civil Constabulary Reserve, and in the provinces 7,321. They were only in existence for a little over a week. They were really whole-time special constables. The moment they were raised, they were placed directly under the control of the civil power. The military power had no authority to move a single one of them. They were handed over to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and he was responsible, as the civil officer, for the control and use of these men of the Civil Constabulary Reserve.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Who was in command?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: They were under-inspectors and superintendents. In the first instance, they were appointed by the Territorial Department of the War Office, but after enlistment they became policemen absolutely, free from the control of, and having nothing to do with, the War Office organisation. In London, they were placed under the immediate command of the Commissioner of Police (Sir William Horwood) and, of course, the Home Office, and in the provinces they were placed under the command of the civilian chief constables.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer had nothing to do with it.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Oh! I thought he was in command.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I bow to the hon. and gallant Member. He has scored off me this time. It is one of his jokes, and I appreciate it. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had nothing to do with it.

Mr. LEE: Can the Home Secretary justify the march of the tanks and armoured cars in London?

HON. MEMBERS: The display of military force.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly. The action we took was essential to the maintenance of order, and the provisioning of London. There was a time, as the Committee knows, when the docks had been closed for, I think, five days, when it was essential to get food from the docks into London. If we had sent down a few policemen or a. few soldiers, I take the responsibility for saying that there might quite likely—knowing what I knew then, and what I know now of the condition of affairs round the docks—have been a collision between the police and the military, and the strikers round the docks. Hon. Members may say that we sent down too great a force, and that we sent down a force which did not need to be used. It was the fact of sending down that superior force, with tanks, that saved bloodshed and saved trouble. [Interruption.] Yes, and opened the docks, and got from the docks food that was essential for the people of this great city, and it was brought out without any bloodshed or trouble of any kind. That was the reason why the tanks were used. The Government take full responsibility for having used them, and I say that it was an essential and a wise measure to take.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what position Lord Birkenhead occupied? Did he revert to his old job of galloper?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Lord Birkenhead, as Secretary of State for India, pursued the duties which the Secretary of State for India is called upon to do. I have given a general outline of the work that was done and of the organisation for which this Vote is asked. Every possible effort at economy was carried out. There was no extravagance
of any kind. The amount for which we are asking is less than we thought would be necessary.

Mr. COVE: How much coal did these people cut?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There was the utmost and rigid economy exercised. I should like to say how much all members of the community, including those who were engaged in the national strike, and their wives and children, are indebted to the organisation throughout the country, to the volunteers and those who kept going the essential services of the country. There was no distinction of any kind made. The striker and his wife and children had the same opportunities of sharing in all these services, and they received the benefit of them just as much as those who were not engaged in the strike. The whole organisation redounded greatly to the credit of all concerned. We always do manage to carry through our difficulties, and to fight our troubles in a fairly amiable way, although some hon. Members opposite have not been very amiable with me.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You never expected to get away so easily as you have done.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was intending to end my speech by thanking the great body of hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). I am sure the Committee realises that the work was well done, and it was done in the interests of the country as a whole.

Mr. PALING: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to deal with the "British Gazette"?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Had the Committee over which the right hon. Gentleman presided any sort of liason with the editor or the staff of the "British Gazette," and was the right hon. Gentleman consulted about the communiqués,and especially the instruction to the armed forces, giving them a free hand in any measures they took?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As far as the "British Gazette" is concerned, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible, but for the Orders which were issued by the Committee over which I presided, I am responsible.

Mr. PURCELL: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I think we ought to congratulate the Home Secretary upon the amazingly one-sided statement he has made. He has done it extremely well. He has told us about the wonderful Government efforts which were made during the period of a so-called nine days' general strike, but to our amazement we find that many of the people were in the employ of the Government for some months or so beforehand. That means that they knew, or had made up their minds, that there was to be a general strike. As one who was in Downing Street at midnight on the 2nd May, let me say I am satisfied that the Government had made up its mind that afternoon that there should be a general strike. On that evening the Government had determined that there should be a general strike on the Tuesday, and no matter what anybody else did or desired to do there would have been a general strike. We are told that this is a wonderful piece of organisation, and I agree that it is. I am not complaining about it. Any Government has a right under the existing circumstances, any capitalist Government, to look after its friends, but the fact of the matter is that this Government used its time, not in trying to find a reasonable settlement of the dispute, but how to defeat the general strike, and they organised for that purpose. The Home Secretary has spoken of the tremendous work that was done, and what it has cost. I think we are paying a terrible price for it. It can be summed up in this way—It was a scab and blackleg organisation and this is the account for it.
They did something worse than that. They set up in this country a condition of things, only temporary, of course, which we should put an end to as speedily as possible. They brought into play a large number of people who under ordinary circumstances will not work, I say that emphatically, who have no desire to work. It took the Government nine months to organise these men to do a week's work and they had to pay them before they started. Wherever the peace was broken, it was mainly these people who were responsible. If you have any doubt about that, let me call your attention to a statement in an official document, not a statement in one of our own publications. It is reported in connection
with the arrival of a detachment of police from Birmingham at an omnibus depot in Smethwick, which is just over the border, when these services were resumed after the strike. The representative of the Chief Constable of Staffordshire says that there was no disorder or any likelihood of disorder in the view of the Smethwick police, who had adequate forces. The incursion of the Birmingham police was not at the request or desire of the county authorities, but when some 30 or 40 omnibuses emerged to start the services there arrived on the scene two superintendents, two inspectors, 20 constables of the regular force, 10 motor-car loads of special constabulary, reserves wearing steel helmets, a fleet of cars driven by Birmingham constables, and a motor ambulance section. This is the organisation that is supposed to protect the public. This is the type of organisation under the Home Secretary and his hydra-headed Strike committee which is supposed to be an efficient machine for the protection of the public.
It was designed for the purpose of creating disorder and encouraging our people to enter into the fray when they would turn round and call out the troops. [An HON. MEMBER: "They failed!"] I know they did, but it was not because of the Home Secretary or his Committee that they failed. I will tell you why they failed. The first order we issued to our people was that wherever they found spies in their committees, or people likely to incite to disorder, they were to turn them out instantly. We told them that any disorder was not to our advantage. This was broadcast throughout the country, and that is the reason why they failed. In one case the town council came to our trades Council and asked us to assist in policing the district. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In many places. In many places we had a close association with the authorities. We assisted them in this respect, we did our best. I am not asking for any cheers on behalf of ourselves or any of our committees; we did it as part of our business. Even in regard to food there were instances in which the local trades committee was anxious to help in its distribution. What happened? Our people were warned off the grass, so to speak, and particularly was this the case in Bristol. There the Chief Constable entered our trade union
premises and ordered that the co-operation between the local authorities and ourselves in the matter of the distribution of food should be stopped. We saved you a considerable sum of money; but whenever we displayed our readiness to do this, we were at once ordered off.
Let us take the case where you had it your own way. I take the case of Weymouth. A report from the local transport workers' union states that an ex-Admiral and four plus-four men had to load a 10-ton truck. A man, who would do the job by himself, got 8s. a day, but it took this ex-Admiral and these four plus-four men a whole day to load the truck. If the dispute had gone on for another three or four months, the Vote would not have been for £433,000, but for something nearer £400,000,000. Take the London omnibus service. That was a very efficient service, you say. We had on each omnibus five men doing two men's job. And how honest all these gentlemen were! We had to limit the fares that they were to take to 3d, nothing more and nothing less. There must always he some test of honesty with regard to the handling of money, even on a. London omnibus, and in this case we limited the fare to 3d. There may be other reasons. What were the reasons for having three men on the front instead of one efficient man? You paid the greatest compliment to the working classes of this country during the general strike that they have ever had paid to them. You said that it takes five heroes during a strike to man a two-man omnibus, even when the limit of fares is 3d. There was barbed wire, too, in every direction, yet people chance themselves with the ordinary general strikers every day. This was the class of man that you were fighting against, the class of man that you organised all your forces to beat down. You did not organise them very efficiently, you could not have organised them very efficiently or they would not have had to be armed, as was the case in several instances with regard to the omnibuses. It was patent to everybody that the men were armed.
The thanks that you gave to many of our people in this connection was that many of them, who committed no offence whatever, were sentenced without any real charge against them or without any charge that could be substantiated in the
ordinary course of things as, for instance, during times when there is no general strike or when a general strike atmosphere does not prevail. I am satisfied of that in eight cases that I know personally, and I dare say that hundreds of other cases could be given. Take the example of a miscarriage of justice of a vile type in which a railwayman with 25 years' service, who applied for his job back, was assaulted on the lift going down to ask for his job by one of these emergency men and four minutes afterwards was sentenced to a month's imprisonment. That was in London on the Thursday after the general strike had been declared off. Your organisation may have been good or bad, but loyal workers were penalised in the way I have just indicated.
There are many other matters that could be referred to. We can point to the attacks on many of the offices and the smashing up of all the typewriters. I do not know why they should have singled out typewriters. There were instances in St. Pancras, Salford, Manchester and Birmingham.. In Birmingham we had the breaking-in of the premises and the destruction of all the stationery without any reason whatsoever. I could understand them going in to arrest their man and taking him out, but to go and destroy the office requisites in a most wanton fashion shows that their desire was not merely to arrest the individual, but to get us into a disturbance that would have led to the calling out of the troops. That was the tendency.

Major EDMONDSON: What offices were these?

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: The hon. Member referred to Salford. What trade union offices were broken into there?

Mr. PURCELL: I am referring to trade union offices, some of which were situated in houses. In one case, where the man died, he was secretary of a branch of a union and his typewriters and papers have been taken and not returned.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: That was not a trade union office, but was a hotbed of Communism.

Mr. PURCELL: Is that to be said with regard to the Birmingham case, or the St. Pancras case? As a matter of fact. they were representatives of their unions in every case of which I am speaking.

Lord APSLEY: What trade unions?

Mr. PURCELL: They were representatives of trade unions. It does not matter what unions.

Lord APSLEY: What trade unions?

Mr. PURCELL: You have no sense of fairness. I was challenged as to the place. I now propose to give two or three places where the association with the authorities was to the advantage of good order. In Colchester, no special constables were enrolled at all, as the result of an arrangement made locally between our own people and the authorities. At Leyton, the same thing prevailed, and there are several other eases. Where the trade union representatives and the local authorities came to some arrangement, there seems to have been no disorder at all. When you refer to the quietness of the country in all respects, you must give some credit for that work. I do not want you to give the Trades Union Congress any credit at all, because they are capable of looking after themselves. When, however, you speak of the wonderful efficiency, we profoundly disagree. When we remember the amount of money available for this purpose, I am satisfied that we have been lucky to get off as well as we have without any bloodshed taking place.
So far as we have seen, these people, who were brought in and who were not concerned with the merits or demerits of the case at all, had as their chief concern that if a row broke out they would be very pleased to begin it and to do their damnedest. That was their attitude. Many of these young men who came from public schools and colleges had made up their minds what they were going to do if they got their opportunity. In many instances they were inciting people to do it. Outside our office we saw it happening. A parade of 10 motor-cars drove straight through a crowd there one day. Their business was to start a riot so that our people could get the worst of it and then the blame would have been all against us. I am glad to say that we got out of it.
I want to agree with the Home Secretary in one thing. I have heard in several big cities of Europe that the general strike was a wonderful thing,
particularly in regard to the fact that there was literally no bloodshed at all in connection with it. It is a great compliment to our countrymen. We pride ourselves on being able to get through in the fashion we did. You ought to acknowledge that there is something to be said for the other side when you remember that, apart from the miners themselves, we had at least 1,750,000 workmen and workwomen on the streets of this country on the Friday of the first week and I daresay that it reached 2,000,000 by the early part of the following week. So far as the first week was concerned, that figure of 1,750,000 people on the streets included large masses of people who were, generally speaking, casually employed and living in our great cities. There is also this that must be said: The Home Secretary spoke about the ability to transport a large amount of food from dockland to the proper quarters. We knew on the Sunday that arrangements would be made for that to be done, and we are entitled to say now that we had urged our people to keep off the streets as much as possible at the time. I am not now arguing whether or not we had power to do things. I am merely stating that it is possible for the working class so to arrange its conduct that it can be the main element in preventing disorder. That is all that I am urging. We take no special praise for what we did. We can urge our people to be orderly. We can be in a fight to change the present social order in its main elements and can do it in what might be called an orderly fashion, so far as life and limb are concerned.

Captain A. EVANS: Then this was a fight to change the social order?

Mr. PURCELL: The hon. Member must take for granted what I say and not what he thinks I say. All these things tend to show that there was a desire on our side to run the thing in an orderly way. Not a word have we heard about the very savage sentences passed upon some of our people. One case that I would like to mention, relates to Bolton, where 10 lads were sentenced to terms up to three months for withdrawing the pin from the wheel of a coal cart.

Sir FRANK MEYER: Is it in order to discuss sentences inflicted on people when we are considering a Supplementary Estimate of this kind?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is nothing whatever in this Vote to justify any reference to those sentences.

Mr. PUFICELL: The Horne Secretary has made a statement as to the orderliness of things during the strike. I am mentioning a case from Bolton which shows that there was something of a disorderly kind. Other cases could be mentioned. The removal of food mentioned by the Home Secretary was not such a wonderful achievement as he would make us believe. I understand that the number of people engaged in that work, apart from soldiers, tanks and machine guns, was abnormal. People who know something about transport tell me that the whole of the work could have been done with a third of the labour in a quarter of the time, and with less than a third of the number of lorries used, to say nothing of the assistance of the troops. Therefore, it seems to me that it would have been better for the Government to have accepted the offer that was made.

Captain WATERHOUSE: Accept food from hooligans

Mr. PURCELL: If they are hooligans, you are an arch-hooligan. They are a dozen times better than you will ever be. So far as our people are concerned, if it was not for them, some of you would be literally lousy in a month.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member had better address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr. PURCELL: I am not going to stand insults anyhow.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Is it right for an hon. Member who has just entered the House to begin immediately by describing those whom a Member is speaking of as "hooligans"?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): We have been called "murderers."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will abstain from using epithets.

Captain WATERHOUSE: May I say, in reply to what was stated by the right hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson), that I have heard every word that the hon. Member has said.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: On a point of Order. I think that you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, cannot have heard what took place. The expression "hooligans" did not refer to any Member of this House.

Mr. PURCELL: It referred to our people.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It was not addressed to hon. Members at all.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not hear the expression.

Mr. POTTS: If I make a statement in this House and I call people "hooligans," shall I be in order in doing that, having regard to the statement that the Home Secretary has made?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a hypothetical question which I should have to consider on its merits when it arose.

Captain EVANS: On a point of Order. During the strike the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) alluded to certain acts of hooliganism and said they were purely acts committed by hooligans.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.

Mr. PURCELL: I do not wish to continue the discussion to any great length, and I will merely say this with regard to the whole of this question. The Government may get it into their heads that they can fight the trade union movement. They may also think that they can defeat the trade unions. I want to assure them that they are in a fool's paradise. I can assure them that the trade union movement has survived ills quite as big as this. It is recovering very rapidly, if it ever needed to recover, and it will recover more rapidly as the days go by. The responsible people are men who have great experience, who have assisted in the making of laws in this House, and have assisted in a large number of negotiations with employers throughout the land. I have not the least doubt that whatever the Government do these men will come back. It may be that there are some
little strands frayed out on the edge of things, but that will not affect the centre of this business at all. On the contrary I think that they will yet lead this great working class army to.another dispute of much larger dimensions than the one through which we have passed. [How. MEMBERS: "Now we know!"] I am not here to hide anything. While many of you think that the general strike was a disaster for the trade union movement, I am satisfied that so far as those eight clays were concerned it was a demonstration of illimitable brilliance so far as the working classes are concerned. There has never been in history an act more brilliant as when some 2,000,000 men and women came out to give aid to and to show that they sided with another million people who were being hardly put to it. Hon. Members opposite may laugh and jeer at that. These people will yet be your masters, and I am certain they will treat your children far better than you treat them. They will be much more generous. They will not deprive your children of education as you have deprived them—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is an old-established rule that speakers must address the Chair.

Mr. PURCELL: Then, Sir, you will have to keep the others in order. In conclusion, I say that this is by no means the last general strike. It is the first, general strike. You will get it in good time, my friends!

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: On orders from Russia.

Mr. PURCELL: I only want to add this. The stress under which the working class is suffering will compel a general strike. It is not that Members on these benches or trade unions desire that there should be a general strike. It is that there is always a feeling, deep down in the hearts of these people, that they are not being treated correctly or decently. Many of them are simply moving in the direction in which they are moving, because of economic factors that are always bearing down upon them. Many of them do not know exactly where they are going. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I repeat that statement, but there are millions more who
have been side-tracked by the Tory party in this country, and as soon as they get back on the proper line, and realise the need for association with their fellows in industry, I am satisfied that this is the side on which they will be found. As soon as that happens it will be goodbye to general strikes. General strikes will be finished with, but so will the Tory party and the capitalist class.

Captain BENN: On a point of Order. This proposed reduction covers the whole Vote, and the Vote includes Item E, which relates to the "British Gazette." May I remind you that your predecessor in the Chair promised that unless the Minister responsible for the "British Gazette," namely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was present—

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: He is here.

Captain BENN: —he would accept a Motion to report Progress. Therefore, I presume that some Member will be at liberty to move to report Progress, pending the attendance of the Minister who is officially responsible.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We had better wait and see what is going to happen.

Mr. BROMLEY: I support the Amendment, which is also on the Paper in my name, for a reduction in this Vote of £100. I do so for the purpose—if hon. Members on the capitalist benches will agree—of presuming to offer some quite friendly advice, against the next time. [Interroption.] The hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Mitchell] is sometimes —if I may say so without offence—so truculent, that I thought, just now, he was pulling out a gun from his pocket.

Sir W. MITCHELL: No, it is a copy of the "British Gazette."

Mr. BROMLEY: In the first place, I should like to point out to the Committee that even hon. Members on this side slip into the mistake of referring to the late upheaval in the trade union world as a general strike. It was nothing of the sort. Had it been a general strike, as some of the trade unions' representatives desired, it would have been much more difficult for the Home Secretary to have given such an airy and satisfactory report upon it. It was due to the lack of truculence among the trade unionists
that it blew over so easily, and that the Government, with their skeleton forces of volunteers, were able to carry on. Had it been a general strike, there would have been no safety men left in the mines, no people to build the huts in Hyde Park in which the milk was stored, no people carrying on any work at all, or conveying foodstuffs as trade unionists did. All those great forces about which we have heard to-night—with all the false figures that were given—could not possibly have taken the place of three million strikers. If the Government had had to carry out the essential services and the safety work and convey the food, they would not have had any surplus to do some of the easy work which they actually performed. The capitalist Government of this country have taken a dangerous road. We have it on the admission of the Home Secretary that preparations were made for a great national strike a month before it took place.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Longer than that.

Mr. BROMLEY: I am speaking from my understanding of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I gather that their blacklegs were actually in their service a month before the event. But that arrangement was built up on an organisation of many months standing. It may be said, to the credit in some way, of the general council that they were not prepared for a national strike at all, and therefore, were not in the truculent mood which has been suggested. I am not going to fall out with the idea of a capitalist Government looking after the capitalist interest. I know that is inevitable as long as the system lasts. We may call the Government by what names we wish: we may try to impress the minds of the people by any political subterfuges we think fit, but we all know quite clearly, on both sides, that the capitalist Government represents the capitalist interest at all costs. If there was no bloodshed in the recent upheaval, no thanks are due to the people who organised the crushing of the trade unions. Hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite know that, and they know that we know it whether their supporters behind them know it or not. [Laughter.] Possibly the supporters
behind them do know it; and would have been only too delighted to have seen the preparations that they claim to know were being made, carried into effect. [HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know!"] If I know more than hon. Members opposite that is possibly why I am not so hilarious and jocular as they appear to be.
I put this to the Government—that there was no need for this expenditure of money, because the organised workers had offered to work all foodstuffs and all essentials. That has been laughed at with great hilarity from the Government side, that they, British people, should consort with other British people, below the caste line, I suppose, for organising in a struggle of this sort to keep the nation fed. That would be beneath their dignity. That was not what the capitalist Government were after, so much as endeavouring to crush the working people. Here was an offer to assist in the working of foodstuffs, and I suggest that an unbiased Government that really desired to hold the scales fairly during a struggle of this character would have said: "Let us work together to conduct it as safely as possible and bring it to an end as speedily as possible." But preparations were made for quite another purpose, and what I suggest to hon. Members opposite℄and I do it without truculence or any appearance, I hope, of a threat℄is that possibly the great delight at what they feel to be a victory, although in their own minds but a transient victory, will bring a great resistance next time, and they may not, as has already been indicated, be, able to control so many of our class to do the work that some of them did.
I was struck during the speech of my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment by the wonderful control of certain hon. Members opposite who, I understand, were in positions of responsibility for the handling of men and possibly endangering human life during the recent disturbance. Why, they could not run a trade union if they could not balance themselves better than that. It only indicates what we, on this side, know very well. It is not only the desire to ridicule and gibe at hon. Members here, but it is the blood lust, and we know it. The danger is this: You have had in this country an organised upheaval about which Members on the
Government side, on the Capitalist benches, have been boasting that there was almost no bloodshed. Why? Because so far the organised workers of this country have endeavoured to carry out their battles, either large or small, in a spirit of which we have so far been proud, and in most other countries of Europe now, owing to the aggression and the repression and the brutality of the Capitalist Governments of those States, you have workers' forces being formed, workers' defence forces. Do you want to bring it here? I know there may be some people in this country who would be delighted to do so, and I suggest that that will be the beginning of the end. It was tried in Ireland, with the same sort of forces that were to have been organised to meet this general strike had it gone on, and how did it end in Ireland? I suggest that, with all their desire to protect the present Capitalist system, hon. Members opposite may with advantage consider the possibility of the next upheaval, because trade unionism is not crushed by any means. In fact it has learned some lessons that will strengthen it for the future.
10.0 P.M.
I would like to say a word or two with regard to the special civil constables, of whom we have heard so much, and the organisation in Hyde Park. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman, when he was describing their activities and the great assiduity with which they attended to their duties, did not mention those who were paying attention to the pockets of the other fellows. They seem to have raked together a very tidy average lot among the constables, and we find thieves, ordinary braggarts, drunkards, and something similar in calibre to those whom I saw in Ireland during the disturbance there. I had the pleasure, I almost said, of seeing the Black and Tans and the Auxiliary Forces there, and I do not want to say too hard things about my fellow men, but those I saw were not such as I would have invited to a wedding party. They were the same class of men in many instances that were organised, at quite good remuneration, into this force to crush down the British working men. We have had insults and sneers hurled at the organised British workers, of alien influence, alien gold, alien this, that and the other, but what about the Capitalist benches, and what about the
blood strain in many of the Capitalist Government of this country? We can show as clean and pure a British strain on this side as they can, and if closely examined, possibly a little more, so that when we are subjected to these sneers it leaves us cold, and we do not get all of a sweat, like some hon. Members opposite.
When any Minister replies to this Debate, I should like to hear if any of this extravagant expenditure that, under the circumstances, need not have been expended, has been paid to employers to make up for the damage done to their stock and property while these very efficacious volunteers were at work. Possibly the Minister of Transport can answer whether they are going to pay for the damage they did on the railways. To talk about their taking the place of the British workers is amusing. They certainly ran a few buses and brought a few clerks from their clingy offices and a few typists. They were the class of people who were driving those buses, and they were delighted with the sunshine and with the flappers admiring them, and everyone believing they were heroes, but, as has been suggested, none of them went down the mines, none of them went down the London sewers, or did the hard, dirty work of the world, and they had very great difficulty in carrying on for nine days with the work they did. But there was a number of these people who went to work on the railways, and I want to know if the railways are to be compensated by public money for the damage they did. There were sonic hon. Members of this House, I think, who made a very savage onslaught on railway work, but I think they stopped at sweeping platforms and snapping tickets, and I never heard that they did any difficult job. They tore up the main line—

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): They did not kill anybody when they did it.

Mr. SULLIVAN: On a point of Order. Is it customary for Front Bench Members to intervene in this way?

Mr. BROMLEY: I am not surprised—

Mr. SULLIVAN: I am, to some extent, a stranger here, but as the Minister of Transport has been interrupting frequently, I would appeal to you, as the
crowd behind is, probably, trying to follow his example.

Mr. BROMLEY: I was reminded, when the Minister of Transport was kind enough to set me right, that, possibly, the data I might have as to what took place on the railways during the dispute was not correct. Possibly I might give a little more detail than his own Department, with all respect to the Department over which he presides with such ability and his usual good humour. Taking only the electric railways here, the Minister of Transport, when he answers, can tell us about those scions of nobility, how many motors they worked out, and how many thousands of pounds' worth of damage they did in running round these little circles. When we come to the main lines, will he tell its how many very valuable engine fire-boxes were burnt out, and lead plugs dropped; whether they are prepared to repair the engines and turntables; whether they have compensated the seven people injured in the accident at Brixton by one of the volunteers not understanding the machine he was controlling; whether they are providing new crossing-gates, because of those people who seemed to take a great pride in decorating the front of the locomotive! I am not joking about this. I am pointing out, first, the unnecessary expenditure in this particular Estimate, all, or nine-tenths of which might have been avoided, had the Government been an unbiassed Government, instead of a capitalists' representative Government, and had worked with the people who would have worked with them to provide foodstuff and the essentials and necessities of life, and to bring the dispute to a close. Then I am trying to show that, unless the Front Bench can assure us that in this £433,000 the payment of the damage to employers' property has been put right, there is a further expense and loss to the country by the manipulations of those gentlemen who took care usually to do their work in the sunshine!
When the Minister of Transport and other Members opposite protest, I take it that they suggest there was not a, great deal of damage done. A friend of mine, who was not connected with the trade union movement, was in conversation with a gentleman who had worked on one
of the railways during the dispute, and this gentleman was bragging, like many others, because they worked for a few days out of a long life-time, and carried on the railways, and my friend, on purpose to sound this braggart, said to him, he supposed he was very proud of having assisted to smash the union. The man was sufficiently frank to say: "I do not know about smashing the bally union, but if the railway company had kept us on a few more days, I am certain we should have smashed the North Eastern Railway." I think that is largely true. What was the class of men? Apprentices, students, ex-convicts. You had to take some back on your railways—two, at least. Let me say this to the Home Secretary, who wants peace now. There were two men taken back into the railway service who. not long before the strike, were sentenced, I believe, to something like 12 months' imprisonment for stealing His Majesty's mails en route, and there were one or two others who had been in prison for ordinary theft. So plentiful were these volunteers, and of such high calibre were they, that these people were taken back. What I want to suggest to the. Home Secretary, for the purpose of peace, is that, in spite of a great deal of patience and a great deal of appeal, two of the convicts who stole His Majesty's mails are still driving engines, but they will not be much longer. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because you will have to empty the prisons to drive the others along with them. They are exceedingly useful people when you want them. I only put this to the Committee, that here is £433,000 expended unnecessarily, expended with full knowledge aforethought, and with the intention of fighting the trade unions, and which has been a waste of public money. I have put one or two questions to the Government Front Bench as to whether compensation for damage done by these blacklegs is included in this Vote. I support the Motion for the reduction.

Captain BENN: I should like to say a word or two about this Estimate, and to hear what justification the Chancellor of the Exchequer can make for some of the features in it. I should like to say, at the outset, quite frankly, that I, myself, thoroughly disapproved of the suppression of the newspapers by the withdrawal of the printing labour. This was
a conflict which could only ultimately be settled by the clash of public opinion, and anything which prevented the free-play of public opinion, in my judgment, was hindering the just solution of the problem. Therefore, in the circumstances, I can well understand the necessity for some official organ—an official and an authoritative organ, which would give due weight, where due weight should be given, instead of which we got a propaganda sheet of a vulgar type. I say nothing about the technical imperfections. I can hardly think there is a sphere of activity from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would shrink, but as a compositor, I do not think he is at his best. I say nothing about the technical aspects. I say nothing about the vulgar tone of the advertisement of the Government and their friends which apeared in the paper, because I do not want to take up time.
I want to refer only to one aspect. We held during the general strike that these matters should be settled by Parliament. We are Parliamentary men. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who are 'we'?"] If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a foolish interruption, it is not for me to prevent him. I did not include himself in the category. I say that there was a body of opinion, in which I am not including the hon. Member, but a body of sane opinion which held that it was in this House that the issue should be decided, that it was here that the matter should be thrashed out and that the public should know from our Debates here what the rights and wrongs of the struggle were. This is the "British Gazette." Instead of reporting the proceedings of this House in a full and authoritative manner, it reports them—I could give many instances—in a vulgar and partisan spirit. The "Times" newspaper, despite the condition of the printing trade at that time, did produce full, careful, detailed, and correct information about the Debates in Parliament, and I say that it did possibly as much as anybody to help to bring about a settlement of the dispute.
Meantime the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and those persons whom he had collected from the "Morning Post" office, were producing a Parliamentary report which was a disgrace in any case to journalism—even of partisan journalism. It was an absolute disgrace
to anything that purported to be official or authoritative. I do not know whether hon. Members have studied the reports in that paper. I am not certainly going to read the matter now that the general strike has finished and that the emergency has pased, but hon. Members can see for themselves how very vulgar some of these reports are. Instead of publishing in the paper what the Government on the one side said, and what, on the other side, the Opposition said, or of putting the case for both, which is what I understand ought to have been done, they indulged in such phrases as these:
Mr. George Lansbury followed with an angry, shouting speech.
The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
A striking one.
Then
there was pandemonium on the Socialist benches.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Some hon. Members opposite may think that I am reading from one of their party organs, but. I am reading from the official "Gazette." Further, I find a reference to
one of the moderate members of the Socialist party,
and so on, and so forth. Let me take another specimen. It speaks of Mr. Herbert Smith as
That dour, glum, heavy-browed and unsmiling person.
Here is another, but I will not read it ℄[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"]— because it refers to an hon. Lady Member of this House, and the reference is such that I should have thought that no decent journalist would have given it. It goes on to say that as she marched to the Table,
the Socialists shouted their glee, but their joy was short-lived.
That is the national organ! I am under a bond not to occupy more than one or two minutes, otherwise I could give many other examples of this vulgarity and partisanship. But I say that the Government responsible, and the Minister responsible, for abusing the trust—for it was a trust—to produce an official and authoritative description of events, if he believed that the House of Commons should rule and not an outside body, should have devoted his
attention to giving a correct description of the proceedings of this House, and should have avoided this vulgarity and partisanship. It will do nothing but bring into ridicule and contempt the very House on which the safety of the country depends.

Mr. DAVISON: The question I desired to ask the Home Secretary was this. In view of the fact that no trouble has taken place with regard to either the General Strike or the lock-out, as you may be pleased to term it, what justification exists for the repressive measures he has introduced?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That could have been discussed yesterday morning, but it would he our of order to-day.

Mr. DAVISON: Oh, no. The Home Secretary definitely invited questions from Members of the House. I put a definite question to him and I want a definite reply.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: The question of the "British Gazette" merits very serious consideration from this House. In the first place, those of us who in the past have read with such delight and appreciation the literary work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and are concerned that our great literary men should preserve unto the grave and beyond the reputation which they deserve, must really be distressed for the reputation of the right hon. Gentleman that he could have been in any way associated with this publication. We have been told, and it has not been denied, that he edited this paper. It is difficult to believe that the right hon. Gentleman, who has written with so magnificent a style and phrasing on other occasions, should have produced this abortion. The only reason I can think of which can have led the right hon. Gentleman to produce this misbegotten child is that he wished to exhibit to the country that State Socialism, as it appears in this enterprise, is a very disastrous experiment. I can think of no other reason which could have prompted him to countenance such a journal as this. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) has already observed that while this strike was in progress there was before
the right hon. Gentleman—in the case of the "Times" newspaper, for instance—examples of how newspapers could be properly conducted, and could decently take one view or another of the issue, and at the same time preserve their dignity and their self-respect. When my hon. and gallant Friend spoke of the vulgarity of this newspaper, which I do not think is contested in any part of the House— [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I am sorry to hear it. I thought the literary taste of this House was sufficiently high to admit that this was a very vulgar newspaper. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I can only say—

Mr. DAVISON: I. have not yet received a reply to my question.

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Sir H. SLESSER: rose

Mr. DAVISON: On a point of Order. Am I entitled, when the Minister is present, to receive a reply?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Not upon some question that does not arise.

Sir H. SLESSER: rose—

Mr. DAVISON: On a point of Order, Captain FitzRoy, I demand an explanation from4 the Home Secretary, because he challenged me and every other Member of the House to ask questions.

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Sir H. SLESSER: I submit to the Committee that perhaps it is one of the most unsatisfactory features of the situation that we should have such an undermining of the prestige of the Government by persons in high authority. If there is any doubt as to the capacity of modern Governments to check unsocial evils and stop the growth of Bolshevism or restlessness in the country, it can only be due to the diminishing respect in which the people who govern are held by the community. The production of such a newspaper as this is calculated to produce disaffection amongst His Majesty's subjects. Loyal as I am, I find it difficult to respect any Government or Minister who can make himself responsible for such a production as this.
May I just deal with one specific case in this newspaper to show not only how
vulgar but how unscrupulous was this journal. I wish to mention a particularly unfair treatment which I myself received. I abstained from any comment on this matter during the strike, but as two or three copies of this journal had been devoted to extracts from certain works which I have published on trade union law, and as an utterly unfair use has been made of those quotations, I wish to point out that they were absolutely torn from their context and applied in connection with things to which they were never intended to apply. I say it is unfair, when dealing with a public opponent at the public expense, to make extracts from his books without reference to their context or to their sense. I wrote a book in which I commented on a proposal made for calling a general strike in order to prevent the exportation of arms by the Government of this country to Russia. It is evident to anyone who has read that book that that was the purpose of the article, which dealt with a specific political act where there can be no doubt that it was political. Extracts were taken from this article, torn from its context, and published under the heading of "Direct Action." Then my name follows, to which is added:
A Socialist admission.
The admission, if it be an admission, was not the admission of anyone quâ Socialist, but possibly, if it be an admission at all, it is an admission made from a legal point of view. However that may be, how utterly unfair it is, and I think the right hon. Gentleman, now that the excitement of the strike has passed away, will admit how utterly unfair it is, when a paper like this, in which there was not even, I think, a correspondence column or any opportunity of reply, snatches extracts from text-books written in an entirely impartial manner and, from a legal point of view, in another connection altogether. Surely, if there were an occasion when precaution and great scrupulousness ought to have been practised, it was this.
Then, may I take another example? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) expressed in this House a certain legal opinion, and that opinion was quoted at length in this newspaper. I noticed that a few days afterwards the Attorney-General wrote an article in this newspaper entitled, "The
Truth of the Coal Negotiations"; but from beginning to end there was never any official statement from the Law Officers of the Crown, or, indeed, from the Government at all, as to the legal position involved here. Were that speech merely to have been set out as part of a Parliamentary Debate, I would not have minded so much, but I do complain that what I said on the next day was curtailed to, I think, not more than an eighth of my total speech. I am quite prepared and am modest enough to say that that represents the respective capacity of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley and myself. But this is not a party organ; this is an. official organ; and we are being asked this evening to vote a considerable sum of money for the publication of an official report of what happened during those days.
I say it is a most dangerous precedent. Some day, when another Government may occupy the benches opposite, an official journal may be similarly edited and produced which may give partial and biased opinions to us. But that is not to say that a Government should not publish accurate information. There is a Government publication, which I read with great interest, the "London Gazette." It is impartial, is conducted in a highly literary and efficient style, and contains all sorts of interesting information. May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, the next time he proceeds to take upon himself the mantle of an official editor, he should follow the example of the "London Gazette"— which I think was started in the reign of James II for the purpose of purveying accurate information—rather than the example of the "Daily Mail," or something worse, in the production of these official papers
No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will say, when he comes to reply, that the emergency was such that it was necessary to produce in the public mind a feeling which would bring the strike rapidly to an end. I think that any proper speeches or representations which anybody or any Government might make ought properly to be reported in this newspaper; but to report fairly is one thing, and to cover your newspaper with large headlines and —[HON. MEMBERS: "Lies!"]—in-accuracies, is another. I notice, for
example, that Mr. Hodges, who is represented in some quarters as a very wise and excellent man—and I am not saying a word against him—is here stated to have received a severe snub; and from day to day it was quite impossible to say whether any particular person would or would not be selected in this official journal for praise or censure. I do not think that, when we are dealing with official news, as apart from party newspapers and party opinions, censure and blame for any part of the public of the country should appear. The Government should have restricted themselves solely to recording facts, and if they had done that, if they had taken an example from a paper like the "Times," which admittedly has political views, no one could properly complain.
Apart from anything else, I say that this was an utter waste of money. The Money that was spent on this newspaper could very properly, from the beginning, have been saved, because almost. from the beginning we had the "Times," certainly after the first few days, and I think most hon. Members opposite, if they were sincere, would admit that they themselves would have preferred to read the "Times" during that time rather than the official organ. That being so, and seeing that you had in existence both that excellent publication that was issued by the Trade Union Congress, which was far better than the "British Gazette," and that you also had that equally excellent publication the "Times," to whose composition so many hon. Members opposite devote, deservedly, a great deal of their time, why should we he called upon to ask the taxpayers to pay to finance a partisan, biased, vulgar newspaper such as can only diminish that prestige of the Government which we all wish to seek to support and, what is more serious, diminish the well-deserved literary reputation which the right hon. Gentleman won before he started turning newspaper correspondent and editor?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I think it will be generally agreed by the Committee that whatever else the British Government may or may not have done, at any rate it has sickened the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South-east Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) of
State Socialism in newspapers. He has made a long complaint in support of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) about the many defects, shortcomings, vices, partialities, vulgarities—that was a word he used with a frequency which betrays considerable lack of fertility of vocabulary—which characterised the "British Gazette." I must point out to him that none of those difficulties would have arisen, and none of the defects and faults of the "British Gazette" would ever have seen the light of day, if he had only succeeded, as doubtless he tried, in persuading his friends not to gag all the other newspapers in the country. After all, all the newspapers, as far as we knew, and as far as some people could try, were to be completely silenced. That was the position that was suddenly sprung upon us. Only one exception was to be made, and that was the newspaper which was supporting the general strike.

HON. MEMBERS: Not true!

Sir H. SLESSER: The right hon. Gentleman must know that. the "Daily Herald" ceased simultaneously with all the other papers and afterwards the "British Gazette" and the journal to which he refers, the Trade Union Congress organ, appeared.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The journal was published as an official journal—

Mr. LANSBURY: To correct your lies.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member, I am sure, will allow me to reply to the attacks which have been made.

Mr. LANSBURY: rose

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member might allow the Chancellor of Exchequer to finish his sentence in regard to the publication of this particular paper.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. Is the Minister entitled to stand at the Table and make an absolutely untrue statement about a matter of fact?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Disgusting yellow journalism.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have been asked a question on a point of Order.
I might be allowed to reply. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whatever he said, thought that what he was saying was a fact.

Mr. CHURCHILL: If we are to be subjected to a great deal of hard language and a great amount of sharp talk, we are entitled to reply; but if we are to be interrupted on wrong points of Order or alleged points of Order, then it is very difficult to carry on the Debate. I do not think it should be supposed that these tactics really do any harm to those who sit on this side of the House. They do not. [Interruption.] There are only 16 or 17 minutes left. I can assure hon. Members opposite that it is a matter of absolute indifference to me whether I am allowed to make my case or whether I am not. [Interruption.] I do not mind in the least. I have plenty of opportunities of speaking in this House. I have to trespass more than I like on the good temper of the Assembly. [Interruption.]
If it would be better to pass the remaining 17 minutes in howling rather than in arguing, then I am prepared to facilitate the general wish; but if we are to be allowed a Debate, we must be allowed liberty of Debate. We must not be shouted down and interrupted because we say something that annoys hon. Members opposite. [Interruption.] Very frequently I hear the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and other hon. Members opposite say things with which I disagree, and which I even think are untrue. When they call me the harshest names that the dictionary contains, I can hardly be expected to leap forward in gratitude and agreement with what they say. I have to put up with it. Anything that is not unparliamentary, I think we ought to put up with. Why should the Labour party be so mealy-mouthed about Parliamentary Debates? We are not afraid of hard language and rough, blunt terms. Why should they be? [Interruption.] Fancy! Revolutionary and advanced politicians afraid of hard words!

Mr. LANSBURY: How many lies have you told?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Do let me come back to the point. As I understand it, the "Daily Herald" ceased publication, and another broadsheet, the name
of which I have forgotten, but not from any want of respect—I have to be very careful, I suppose, in what I say now—was started. I ask the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley this question: Was not that. broadsheet, the Trade Union official newspaper, worked by union labour?

Mr. LANSBURY: When it was worked by union labour—

HON. MEMBERS: Answer.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley has been asked a. question and hon. Members should allow him to give his reply.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am not able to say how the paper was produced. The only point on which I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman was his statement that a Labour newspaper had been permitted to run when others had been stopped. The "British Worker" did not start, and, as I understand, was not permitted to start until the Government started the "British Gazette." I sit here and have to listen to many things with which I disagree, but I do not think I interrupt—[HON. MEMPERS: "Oh, oh!"]—and I am subjected to as much interruption as any hon. Member in the House, but I have never complained.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not complaining at all. What I understood was, that when trade union labour was called out from all other papers, and its inaction was maintained throughout the strike as far as it was within the power of those who gave the summons to enforce it, the trade union newspaper was produced during the whole of the strike, I presume, by trade union labour and not by blackleg labour.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: That is a lie, and you know it is!

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw, withdraw!

Mr. CHURCHILL: There were a great many difficulties which confronted us in this emergency. For the first two or three days the main question was, not what should be put into the paper or how it should be produced, but whether anything could be produced at all, and I think it is very remarkable, consider-
ing that there were only eight or nine persons who were experts at all concerned in the whole of that production that we got over these difficulties as well as we did. There was only one man for two whole days who could set up type on which a newspaper is founded, and consequently anything which was put into the paper had to go in seven or eight hours before the paper appeared. It was so difficult to get type set up, so hard pressed were we on the first day, that it was thought desirable by those conducting the paper to take a large block of copy which was in what is called stereo, left from a previous issue of the "Morning Post," and printed on the back of the paper. When you are reduced to these straits and these difficulties, it is quite possible there may be some slips in the editing of the paper; it is possible some views get through which ought not to get through, and others get there in a form in which under ordinary circumstances they would never be allowed to appear.
I make all admissions upon that score. But after the first three or four days were over we were getting on much better, we were getting a few more people able to set up the news as it came in, and consequently we were able to open our columns much more widely and deal with the editorial side in a more thorough manner. Take the case of the statement of the Archbishop of Canterbury and that of Cardinal Bourne. At the time they came in it was very difficult to get them into the paper, and it was thought that, in view of the other news and the limited means of setting-up, we had better leave them out. I was much fortified by the attitude that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) took as Prime Minister in the late coal strike, when some of the Ecclesiastical authorities intervened, and he said he was not going to have secular affairs intervened in by highly-placed divines, they had much better confine themselves to a sphere with which they were more acquainted.
Then there was the question of the speech of Lord Oxford. I saw on the tape, which still continued to work, some four or five lines of a speech by Lord Oxford in the House of Lords, and I saw it amounted to what may be called a
patriotic declaration. I immediately said to the editor of the "Gazette," "Find out what Lord Oxford has said, and let us have some report."

Captain W. BENN: You did direct what went in?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman need not imagine that I shirk any responsibility. I asked that they should endeavour to find out what had been said, but it appears that the reporters of the Press Gallery in the House of Lords had also been called out, and the only copy of that speech which existed, I believe, was a copy which, I learned long since the strike, Lord Oxford for better security had handed to the Chief Whip in the House of Commons. What did I do? I wrote the next day to Lord Oxford, and I sent the letter to him by a common friend, saying that if he had anything to say to the nation we should be delighted to print it and give it as large a circulation as possible. I said the same thing to Lord Grey. They both availed themselves of the invitation, and, of course, not a single word was altered in any way. I wrote to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and asked him if he would care to say something. My right hon. Friend no doubt felt his literary activities were already bespoke. I was quite ready to print the honest, helpful and fair opinions of any person who was endeavouring to get this country out of its difficulties. I would gladly have printed the admirable statement which has now seen the light and which has been made by the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Bromley). I would have gladly given the utmost publicity to any such statement.
When you say to me that this paper ought not to have been partisan, but ought to have been entirely impartial, there I entirely differ. I decline utterly to be impartial as between the fire brigade and the fire. When you are in a great difficulty and in a fight of this kind, however unfortunate it may be, it it absolutely no use people pretending they do not know what side they are on. Here I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me. The ancient Greeks had a very salutary law that in disturbances of this kind, which sometimes in that
country took a very serious form, anyone who could not make up his mind which side he was on was put to death.

HON. MEMBERS: You would have died young.

Mr. CHURCHILL: At any rate, I want to make it perfectly clear that it was no part of our duty in producing a newspaper at a time of great crisis to put our very limited staff to work on filling the paper with a lot of defeatist trash. I hope that we got out of that difficulty in such a way that it will not be necessary for either of the parties in the State to conduct their disputes in future on the basis of the whole of the newspaper Press going out of action. It is very much better to let them all bay and blare away together, because in some way or other they correct each other. When you talk of the "British Gazette" and the organising of a newspaper, you have to make up your mind first of all whether you wish to fortify the faithful or to convert the heathen. We thought it essential, in the early days of this dispute, to rally and organise as well as we could those people in the country who were going to help in keeping the vital services going, and from that point of view we undoubtedly disposed of the limited forces which we controlled to the best possible advantage.
I cannot think that this was an unworthy achievement, with all its faults, which I perfectly clearly see. I cannot pretend to have read every word that appeared or to have sifted and garnered all the things that were published, but

I am sure that if we had gone on for another week or 10 days a very wide latitude of opinion would have been possible in its pages, so long as it tended to a peaceful solution of the difficulty in which the country found itself. But that did not arise. In eight or nine days it came to an end. In that time we achieved something. With a handful of experts and a lot of amateurs of all kinds we printed a paper which in its last issue attained 2,500,000 copies, and was delivered next morning at breakfast time from Newcastle to Bristol. I believe that it played an important part in raising the general strike, and some part in upsetting the Liberal party.

One last word. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Purcell) has indicated that a time may come when another trial of strength will occur—which I devoutly hope may not be the case—and when something like this will be tried again upon the country or the community. I have no wish to make threats or to use language which would disturb the House and cause bad blood. But this I must say: Make your minds perfectly clear that if ever you let loose upon us again a general strike, we will loose upon you—another "British Gazette."

Mr. POTTS: rose

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 122.

Division No. 336.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Betterton, Henry B.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Albery, Irving James
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Chapman, Sir S.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W.Derhy)
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Charteris, Brigadler-General J.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Apsiey, Lord
Braithwaite, A. N.
Clayton, G. C.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
BrIdgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Asthury, Lieut. Commander F. W.
Briggs, J. Harold
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Atholl, Duchess of
Briscoe, Richard George
Coltox, Major Wm. Phillips


Atkinson, C.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Conway, Sir W. Marlin


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.
Cooper, A. Duff


Balniel, Lord
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Couper, J. B.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)


seamish, Captain T. P. H.
Bullock, Captain M.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Berm, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Burman, J. B.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Bennett, A. J.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Crookshank, Cot. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Butt, Sir Alfred
Cunlifie, Sir Herbert


Berry, Sir George
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davidson, J.(Hertr'd,Hemel Hempast'd)


Bethel, A.
Campbell, E. T.
Davidson, Major.General Sir John H.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
lliffe, Sir Edward M.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Ruggles.Brise, Major E. A.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Jacob, A. E.
Rye, F. G.


Dixey, A. C.
Jephcott, A. R.
Salmon, Major I.


Drewe, C.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Ron. Sir William
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sandernan, A. Stewart


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Kidd, J. (Linllthgow)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Ellis, R. G.
Kindersiey, Major G. M.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Elveden, Viscount
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'I, Exchange)


England, Colonel A.
Lamb, J. Q.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Rentrew,W.)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Shepperson, E. W.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Skelton, A. N.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Looker, Herbert William
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Faire, Sir Bertram G.
Lord, Walter Greaves.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Fermoy, Lord
Lougher. L.
Smithers, Waldron


Fielden, E. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Finburgh, S.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Lumley, L. R.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Forrest, W.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Stanley, Col. Hon, G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Frece, Sir Walter de
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Strickland. Sir Gerald


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
MacIntyre, I.
Stuart, Crichton., Lord C.


Ganzoni, Sir John.
McLean, Major A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gates, Percy
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Manningbam Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sugden, Sir Wilfried


Goff, Sir Park
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
ajor.Gen. Si Frederick H.


Cower, Sir. Robert
Mason, Lfeut.-Col. Glyn K.
Templeton, W. P.


Grace, John
Meller, R. J.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Tinne, J. A.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Titchffeld, Major the Marquess of


Guest,Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol,N.)
Monsell, Eyres, Corn. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hall, Lleut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Waddington, R.


Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wallace. Captain D. E.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Hammers'ey, S. S.
Murchison, C. K.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hanbury, C.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nelson, Sir Frank
Waterhouse. Captain Charles


Harland, A.
Neville, R. J.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hartington, Marquess of
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nuttall. Ellis
Watts, Dr. T.


Hasiam, Henry C.
Oakley, T.
Wells, S. R.


Hawke, John Anthony
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Headiam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Williams, Corn. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hills. Major John Waller
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pete, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Withers, John James


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Pielou, D. P.
Weimer, Viscount


Holland, Sir Arthur
Power, Sir John Cecil
Womersley, W. J.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k. Nun.)
Pownalf, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Preston, William
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich. W.)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossiey)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Horiick, Lleut.-Colonet J. N.
Radford, E. A.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Ralne, W.
Young, Rt. Hon, Hilton (Norwich)


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Rawson, Sir Cooper



Hume, Sir G. H.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen, Sir Aylmer
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Captain Viscount Curzon and


Hurd, Percy A.
Ramer, J. R.
Captain Margesson


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Charieton, H. C.
Fenby, T. D.


Ammon, Charles George
Cluse, W. S,
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Gardner. J. P.


Barker. G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Compton, Joseph
Gibbins, Joseph


Barr, J.
Crawfurd, H. E.
Gillett, George M.


Batey, Joseph
Dalton, Hugh
Gosling, Harry


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Greenall, T.


Broad, F. A.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and coine)


Bromley, J.
Day, Colonel Harry
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Duncan, C.
Grundy, T. W.


Buchanan, G.
Donnie, H.
Guest. Haden (Southwark, N.)




Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lunn, William
Snell, Harry


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
MacLaren, Andrew
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Hamilton, Sir R (Orkney & Shetland)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Stamford, T. W.


Hardie, George D
March, S.
Stephen, Campbell


Harris, Percy A.
Montague, Frederick
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Murnln, H.
Sullivan, J.


Hayday, Arthur
Oliver, George Harold
Sutton, J. E.


Hayes, John Henry
Palln, John Henry
Taylor, R. A.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Paling, W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thurtle, E.


Hirst, G. H.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Tinker, John Joseph


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Potts, John S.
Townend, A E.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Purcell, A. A.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Viant, S. P.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Riley, Ben
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ritson, J.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Runcirhan, Rt. Hon. Waiter
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Saklatvala, Shapurjl
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Welsh, J. C.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Scurr, John
Westwood, J.


Kelly, W. T.
Sexton, James
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Kennedy, T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wiggins, William Martin


Kirkwood, D.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lansbury, George
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lawrence, Susan
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Lawson, John James
Sitch, Charles H.



Lee, F.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lindley, F. W.
Smilile, Robert
M r. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Lowth. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Charles Edwards.

Question put accordingly, "That a sum, not exceeding £432,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 260.

Division No. 337.]
AYES.
[11.12 P.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardle, George D.
Saklatvala, Shapurjl


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hitisbro')
Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ammon, Charles George
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scurr, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Aberullery)
Hayes, John Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barr, J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Been, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hirst, G. H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromley, J.
Jenkins, W. (Neath, Glamorgan)
Smillie, Robert


Brown, James (Ayr and Buts)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buchanan. G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stamford, T. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Collins, Sri. Godfrey (Greenock)
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Roliox)


Compton, Joseph
Kirkwood, D.
Sullivan, J.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Taylor, R. A.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lawson, John James
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.I)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Thurtle, E.


Davison, J. E. (Smetheack)
Lindley, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Colonel Harry
Lowth, T.
Townend, A. E.


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dunnlco, H.
MacLaren, Andrew
Viant, S. P.


Fenby, T. D
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Garro-Jones, Captain G M.
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gardner, J. P.
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan Lt Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnln, H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Welsh, J. C.


Gosling, Harry
Pallin, John Henry
Westwood, J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Purcell, A. A.



Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben
M r. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Rltson, J.
Charles Edwards.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter



NOES.


Aciand Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Albery, Irving James
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Ansley, Lord


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Allen. J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Atholl, Duchess of
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Atkinson, C.
Gratrlan, H. Brent
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol. N.)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Balniel, Lord
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. air F. (Dulwich)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Hall, Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Pielou, D. P.


Bean, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bennett, A. J.
Hammersiey, S. S.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Hanbury, C.
Preston, William


Bethel, A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Price, Major C. W. M.


Betterton, Henry B.
Harland, A.
Radford, E. A.


Blrchail, Major J. Dearman
Hartington, Marquess of
Paine, W.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hallam, Henry C.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hawke, John Anthony
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Headiam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Renter, J. R.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Braithwaite, A. N.
Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hilts, Major John Wailer
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Briggs, J. Harold
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Rye, F. G.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Salmon, Major I.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hortick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Burman, J. B.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberi'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hume, Sir G. H.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Campbell, E. T.
Hurd, Percy A.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shepperson, E. W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (OX. Univ.)
lliffe, Sir Edward M.
Skelton, A. N.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Chapman, Sir S.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't)
Smithers, Waldron


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jacob, A. E.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Clayton, G. C.
Jephcott, A. R.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Staniey,Coi. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Cooper, A. Duff
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Strickland. Sir Gerald


Cooper, J. B.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn'


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
King, Captain Henry Dcuolas
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Crookshank,Cpt.H.Rindsey,Gainsbro)
Lamb, J. Q.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Lane Fox, Cot. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davidson, J.(Hertt'd,Hemel Hempst'd)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Templeton, W. P.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Looker, Herbert William
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Lord, Waiter Greases
Thompson. Luke (Sunderland)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lougher, L.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lucas.Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Tinne, J. A.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dixey, A. C.
Lumley, L. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Drewe, C.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Waddington, R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Ellis, R. G.
Maclntyre, Ian
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Eiveden, Viscount
McLean, Major A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


England, Colonel A.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s,-M.)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Manningham-Builer, Sir Mervyn
Watts, Dr. T.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Margesson, Captain D.
Wells, S. R.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple


Falls, Sir Bertram G.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Wiggins, William Martin


Fermoy, Lord
Meller, R. J.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fielden, E. B.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Williams, Corn. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Finburgh, S.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Forestier.Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Forrest, W.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Withers, John James


Foxcrott, Captain C. T.
Mansell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wolmer, Viscount


Frece, Sir Walter de
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Womersley, W. J.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Gates, Percy
Murchison, C. K.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Yerburgh. Major Robert D. T.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nelson. Sir Frank
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Goff, Sir Park
Neville, R. J.



Gower, Sir Robert
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grace, John
Nuttall, Ellis
Captain Viscount Curzon and Lord


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Oakley, T.
Stanley.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: claimed, "That the Original Question be now put."

Original Question put accordingly.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 106.

Division No. 338.]
AYES.
[11.23 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut..Colonel
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston.s.-M.)
Looker, Herbert William


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Lord, Walter Greaves-


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lougher, L


Albery, Irving James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fairfax, Captain J G.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool,W. Derby)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lumley, L. R.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fenby, T, D.
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Apsley, Lord
Fermoy, Lord
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
FIelden, E. B.
MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Finburgh, S.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Atholl, Duchess of
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Macintyre, lan


Atkinson, C.
Forrest, W.
McLean, Major A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Foxcrolt, Captain C. T.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Frece, Sir Walter de
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Bainiel, Lord
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Bleamish, Captain T. P. H.
Gates, Percy
Margesson, Captain D.


Bann, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Bennett, A. J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Bentlnck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Goff, Sir Park
Meller. R. J.


Bethel, A.
Gower, Sir Robert
M eyer, Sir Frank


Betterton, Henry B.
Grace, John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Monsen, Eyres, Corn. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grotrian, H. Brent
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Bowater, Sir T. Vanslttart
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Braithwaite, A. N.
Hall, Lleut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Morrison-Belt, Sir Arthur Cllve


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hall,Vice-Admiral Sir R.(Eastbourne)
Murchison, C. K.


Briggs, J. Harold
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nall. Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph


Briscoe, Richard George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hammersley, S. S.
Neville, R. J.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. H. I.
Hanbury, C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nuttall, Ellis


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Harland, A.
Oakley, T.


Bullock, Captain M.
Harris, Percy A.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Burman, J. B.
HartIngton, Marquess of
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hallam, Henry C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hawke, John Anthony
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Campbell, E. T.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Pets, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A,
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Plelou, D. P,


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hills, Major John Walier
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Preston, William


Chapman, Sir S.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Maryiebone)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Radford, E. A.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Raine, W.


Clayton, G. C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cobb. Sir Cyril
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A, D.
Horlick, Lieut,Colonel J. N.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Remer, J. R.


Coiling, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberi'nd, Whiteh'n)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Couper, J. B.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Insklp, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rye, F. G.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Jackson, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. F. S.
Salmon, Major I.


Davidson,J.(Hertt'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, cen'l)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Jacob, A. E.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Jophcott, A. R.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Dawson, Sir Philip
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl (Renfrew,W.)


Dixey, A. C.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Drewe, C.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Shepperson, E. W.


Eden, Captain Anthony
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lamb, J. Q.
Skelton, A. N.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Ellis, R. G.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Elveden, Viscount
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Smithers, Waldron


England, Colonel A.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Tinne, J. A.
Williams, Corn. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Sprot, Sir Alexander
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Wlll'seden, E.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wise, Sir Fredric


Streatleild, Captain S. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Withers, John James


Strickland, Sir Gerald
Waddington, R.
Wolmer, Viscount


Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Womersley, W. J.


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Styles, Captain H. Walter
Warner. Brigadier-General W. W.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Warrender, Sir Victor
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)



Templeton, W. P.
Watts, Dr. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wells, S. R.
Captain Viscount Curzon and Lord


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wiggins, William Martin
Stanley.


Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayes. John Henry
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hilisbro')
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertlliery)
Hirst, G. H.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barr, J.
Hirst W. (Bradford, South)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sltch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sresser, Sir Henry H.


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smillie, Robert


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhtthe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford. T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Close, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Sullivan. J.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Sutton, J. E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lawson, John James
Taylor, R. A.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Thurtle, E.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lindley, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Colonel Harry
Lunn. William
Townend, A. E.


Duncan, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Trevclyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dunnico, H.
Maclean. Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Viant, S. P.


Gardner, J. P.
March. S.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Watson, W. M. (Duntermllne)


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Palin, John Henry
Welsh, J. C


Greenall, T.
Paling, W.
Westwood, J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Purcell, A, A.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton.le-Spring)



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Ritson, J.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Saklatvala, ShapurJl
Charles Edwards.


Hayday, Arthur
Salter, Dr. Alfred

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow. Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and post poned.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty - seven Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.